Religious Freedom Project BERKLEY CENTER for Religion, Peace & World Affairs GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY

International Religious Freedom: Toward a Model of Transatlantic Cooperation October 8, 2015

In partnership with the Institute for Studies of Religion and the British Council About the Religious Freedom Project

The Religious Freedom Project (RFP) at Georgetown University’s Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs is the nation’s only university-based program devoted exclusively to the analysis of religious freedom, a basic human right restricted in many parts of the world.

Under the leadership of Director Thomas Farr and Associate Director Timothy Shah, the RFP engages a team of inter- national scholars to examine and debate the meaning and value of religious liberty; its importance for democracy; and its role in social and economic development, international diplomacy, and the struggle against violent religious extremism.

The RFP began in 2011 with the generous support of the John Templeton Foundation. In 2014 that support continued, while the project also began a three-year partnership with Baylor University and its Institute for Studies of Religion under Director Byron Johnson.

For more information about the RFP’s research, teaching, publications, conferences, and workshops, visit our website at http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/rfp.

About the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace & World Affairs

The Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs at Georgetown University, created within the Office of the President in 2006, is dedicated to the interdisciplinary study of religion, ethics, and public life. Through research, teaching, and service, the center explores global challenges of democracy and human rights; economic and social de- velopment; international diplomacy; and interreligious understanding. Two premises guide the center’s work: that a deep examination of faith and values is critical to address these challenges, and that the open engagement of religious and cultural traditions with one another can promote peace.

Acknowledgements

This conference was hosted by the Religious Freedom Project and organized and co-sponsored by the following part- ners: British Council, the Institute for Studies of Religion at Baylor University, the Institute on Culture, Religion & World Affairs at Boston University, The Review of Faith & International Affairs, Center for Civil and Human Rights, University of Sussex, International Center for Law and Religion Studies, and Birks Forum on the World’s Religions. The dialogue is also part of a semester-long exploration of the global future of governance, under the auspices of Georgetown University’s Global Futures Initiative. This publication was made possible through the support of a grant from the John Templeton Foundation. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the John Templeton Foundation.

2 BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 Introduction

Several European countries, the EU, and Canada have recently begun a more systematic treatment of international religious freedom in their foreign policies. The United States has done so since 1998 because of the passage that year of the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA). In theory, therefore, the potential exists for transatlantic cooperation in promoting religious freedom globally.

However, differences among Western democracies are significant, both with respect to the meaning and value of religious freedom itself, and to the question of how to promote it as an aspect of foreign policy. This dialogue—the first in a year-long series on IRFA policy—aimed to identify these differences and find ways to accommodate or overcome them in the urgent task of advancing inter- national religious freedom.

This day-long event began with a keynote address on religion and modernity by renowned sociologist Peter Berger, followed by responses from Os Guinness and Walter Russell Mead. Then panel discussions featured leading voices from the academic and policy worlds, including Anne Leahy, Sue Breeze, Mustafa Akyol, Monica Toft, and Pasquale Ferrara. Speakers discussed the challenges and best practices for promoting religious freedom abroad; innovative ways to construct a united, transatlantic coalition; and the consequences of religious freedom, including its relationship to violence and extremism. The day concluded with a rousing speech by Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom David Saperstein, who spoke about the lessons other countries could draw from the American experience, as well as opportunities for improving the lives of religious minorities worldwide.

This conference is a partnership of two major initiatives. The first is a year-long series of events on policy associated with the Interna- tional Religious Freedom Act, which will produce a revised edition of The Future of U.S. International Religious Freedom Policy. This series is sponsored by the Religious Freedom Project at Georgetown University (together with its partner, the Institute for Studies of Religion at Baylor University), The Review of Faith & International Affairs at the Institute for Global Engagement, and the Institute on Culture, Religion & World Affairs at Boston University.

The second is a “Bridging Voices” grant from the British Council, awarded to Dan Philpott of the Center for Civil and Human Rights of the University of Notre Dame and to Fabio Petito of the School of Global Studies of the University of Sussex, in partnership with the European University Institute and the University of Milan, to foster a transatlantic partnership on religious freedom. This is the second of two policy dialogues on the subject, the first having taken place at Wilton Park, United Kingdom in February 2015. Generously co-sponsoring the dialogues are the International Center for Law and Religion Studies (BYU) and McGill University’s Birks Forum on the World’s Religions. The conference was followed on October 9 by a close-door policy dialogue which focused on the impact of Western religious freedom policies as well as the state of religious freedom in various regions of the world.

BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 3 Program

Welcome Thomas Farr, Religious Freedom Project Daniel Philpott, University of Notre Dame

Keynote Address: Toward a New Paradigm on Religion and Modernity Panelist: Peter Berger, Boston University Moderator: Walter Russell Mead, Hudson Institute Respondent: Os Guinness, Author and Social Critic

The Case for Religious Freedom Policy Moderator: Daniel Philpott, University of Notre Dame Panelists: Mustafa Akyol, Star and Hurriyet Daily News Allen Hertzke, University of Oklahoma Sofia Lemmetyinen, European Commission

Keynote Conversation: Overcoming Differences Between Western Democracies in Developing a Common Religious Freedom Policy Moderator: Timothy Samuel Shah, Religious Freedom Project Panelists: Pasquale Annicchino, European University Institute Thomas Farr, Religious Freedom Project Ahmet Kuru, San Diego State University Anne Leahy, McGill University

How Can Western Democracies’ Religious Freedom Policy Advance National and International Security? Moderator: Thomas Farr, Religious Freedom Project Panelists: Sue Breeze, U.K. Foreign and Commonwealth Office Pasquale Ferrara, European University Institute Nilay Saiya, SUNY Brockport Monica Toft, Oxford University

Keynote Address: U.S. Religious Freedom Policy: What Lessons Should Other Western Democracies Learn from It? David Saperstein, U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom

4 BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 Keynote Address: Toward a New Paradigm on Religion and Modernity

THOMAS FARR: On behalf of the Religious Freedom Project, The Religious Freedom Project has three basic premises—al- welcome to the campus of Georgetown University on this beau- ways start with three, especially if you’re a Trinitarian like I am. tiful fall morning. I want to thank Fabio Petito and the British [Laughter] First, religious freedom is important for individuals Council; Dennis Hoover and the Institute for Global Engage- and for societies for a whole host of reasons, many of which we ment; The Review of Faith & International Affairs, of which Den- will talk about today. For example, we believe human beings nis is the editor; my old friend and colleague, Cole Durham, are, by their nature, truth seekers. They naturally want to know and his International Center for Law and Religion Studies at the answers to the questions about the source of their being, the Brigham Young University; Walter Mead of Bard College and order of reality, and why they’re here. Is there something after editor of American Interest; and of course, the great Peter Berger death? No one can live a fully human life if they are not free and the Institute on Culture, Religion, and World Affairs at Bos- to pursue these questions and to order their lives in accordance ton University, directed by Robert Hefner. I’m grateful to all of with the answers that they discover. you and our other co-sponsors as well. Religious freedom has social consequences as well; it’s not just Let me say a word about the Religious Freedom Project here at important to individuals. It’s highly correlated with other so- Georgetown and the significance of this event today for our activi- cioeconomic and political goods such as economic growth and ties. The RFP represents a strategic partnership between George- development, the consolidation and the stability of democracy, town University and Baylor University’s Institute for Studies of and the undermining of religious violence and religion-related Religion, directed by Professor Byron Johnson. I’m delighted that terrorism. you’re here, Byron. I’m particularly delighted to welcome the pres- ident and chancellor of Baylor University, Judge Ken Starr, who is The second premise is that religious freedom is in global crisis. here with us today. Thank you, Judge, for coming. Outside the West, the symptoms include violent, brutal persecu-

BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 5 tion of religious minorities. Inside the West, including in the erlands, Norway, and the European Union have adopted foreign United States, the symptoms include increasing government re- policies of religious freedom in one way or another. Might these strictions on religion and rising social hostility to religion, par- democracies cooperate in promoting religious freedom around ticularly religious actors in the public square. the world? The premise of such a proposal is that through mul- tilateral cooperation, the promotion of religious freedom would The third proposition is that these problems are not getting suf- be empowered. ficient attention from opinion shapers and policymakers. Our goals at the Religious Freedom Project are to raise the profile of The proposal, though, is not without its difficulties. Would mul- this issue, to build knowledge and awareness about religious free- tilateral cooperation water down the pursuit of religious freedom dom and its value to society, and to give a fair hearing to people and make it meaningless? Would there be fractiousness over with different views. strategy, or all talk and little action? Would the comparatively secular character of European societies inhibit cooperation with Today’s conference kicks off a year-long examination of U.S. in- the United States? What about Western Europe’s comparatively ternational religious freedom policy. For the past 17 years—a strong tendency to govern religion through the state? Western period where we’ve seen three presidential administrations led Europe and the United States also have different experiences by both parties—the United States has been required by law to with Muslim populations. Will this affect their ability to cooper- advance religious freedom in its foreign policy. Is this policy a ate on religious freedom? Even if a cooperative approach to reli- wise one? Is U.S. policy helping the victims of religious freedom gious freedom were to be developed, how would it play outside around the world? Is it advancing American interests? What, if the West? Will it foment cultural clash or could the consensus on anything, could we be doing better? religious freedom be widened? These are the kinds of questions that we will be exploring over the next two days. In 2008, Dennis Hoover and I published a little book entitled The Future of U.S. International Religious Freedom Policy: Recom- The coalition of sponsors behind the event is itself a remark- mendations for the Obama Administration. It was published at able feat of transatlantic, multinational, and multilateral coop- the beginning of what became two consecutive administrations. eration. The coalition is a confluence of two streams. The series We’re going to reexamine the premises of that book during the run by Georgetown’s Religious Freedom Project and its related course of this year, beginning today. Then in early 2017 we will partners—including Baylor University, the Institute for Global reissue the book to the new administration and the new presi- Engagement, and Peter Berger of Boston University—is one of dent. What better way to begin this journey than our conference the streams that Tom Farr just described. The other stream be- today, “International Religious Freedom: Toward the Model of gan with the Bridging Voices grant from the British Council for Transatlantic Cooperation.” Can Western democracies agree in a series of two policy dialogues on religious freedom across the principle to advance religious freedom? If so, can they cooperate Atlantic. The architect of these dialogues is Professor Fabio Petito in the breach? What are the stakes? What are the obstacles? of Sussex University. I want to acknowledge Fabio. These policy dialogues were his brainchild. He was kind enough to approach Let’s get to it. We have a wonderful lineup of speakers, which me at Notre Dame’s Center for Civil and Human Rights to form you can see in your programs. Let me turn you over to Profes- a partnership. The first of these dialogues took place at the Wil- sor Dan Philpott, director of the Center for Civil and Human ton Park conference center in England back in February. This Rights at the University of Notre Dame. I’m proud to say that event is the second of two. he’s also one of the scholars of the Religious Freedom Project. Please welcome Dan Philpott. As a dialogue, this event is designed as a mutual and vigorous conversation conducted in the hopes of developing coopera- DANIEL PHILPOTT: Thank you, Tom. Ladies and gentleman, tion. Fabio also forged relationships with other partners who it is also my pleasure to welcome you to this policy dialogue. were indispensable for this dialogue. One is the International I’m Dan Philpott, director of the Center for Civil and Human Center for Law and Religion Studies at Brigham Young Uni- Rights at the University of Notre Dame. Seventeen years ago, versity directed by Cole Durham, who is here with us today. the U.S. Congress mandated religious freedom in U.S. foreign Cole is one of the greatest forces for religious freedom in the policy through the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. world. Cole’s center contributed to this event quite significant- In recent years Canada, Britain, Austria, Germany, Italy, Neth- ly, both in resources and by bringing some 40 speakers and

6 BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 other participants. McGill University and the Birks Forum on writes regularly on international affairs for leading newspapers the World’s Religions also contributed their resources and their and magazines. If you don’t know of him, chances are you really ideas to today’s event. In addition, we welcome both Anne Lea- haven’t been reading. Please join me in welcoming Walter Russell hy and Daniel Cere, both of whom bring their distinguished Mead and our opening panel. scholarly and diplomatic records in religion and politics. We regret the late cancellation of Professor Armando Salvatore WALTER RUSSELL MEAD: It is really wonderful to be here. from McGill, who also contributed significantly. Finally, the It’s an honor to participate in an event of this kind, and it’s a European University Institute and the University of Milan also special honor and pleasure to sit on a panel with Peter Berger— contributed to this project. We are grateful for all those here although, I have to say, if you sit on a panel with Peter Berger, representing these fine institutions. you need to just give up because Peter will have the best jokes. [Laughter] He has the greatest range of knowledge about the way Now, for the coming attraction, the world works. He has a schol- we are honored to have Profes- arly reputation which I, in a dozen sor Peter Berger as our keynote “America needs to reaffirm why lifetimes, could never hope to speaker and Professor Walter freedom of conscience is the first match. As one of the great human Russell Mead responding to him. freedom, seeing as there are many beings in this sometimes difficult We are also delighted to have Os intellectuals who no longer believe world of scholarship, Peter re- Guinness with us, who will re- that. You can see elite newspapers mains someone whom all of us are spond to Professor Berger. When putting ‘religious freedom’ in privileged to know and whom we you think of Os Guinness, the quotation marks or seeing it as a cover hope to emulate. So Peter, thank first thing that comes to mind you so much for being here on the might be, “Is he related to Guin- for bigotry. The proper understanding panel. ness beer?” Well, it turns out that of it is shamefully distant in many the answer is yes. He is the great- of the elite conversations taking I’m also delighted to sit next to grandson of the founder of Guin- place in many of the universities of Os Guinness, who I’m sure is ness, which I think is his most this country. That is a scandal and a well known to many people here. distinguished accomplishment. tragedy. ” Some of you might know his [Laughter] He’s also the author great-grandfather’s work better of 30 books about Christianity, Os Guinness than his own work. I’m thinking religion, and politics. One of his of a couple of research associates most central, driving questions is, who worked with me; you could “How do we live with one another despite our religious differ- say that they live to deepen their knowledge of his grandfather’s ences, and how do we develop a healthy pluralism?” Os is the work with Guinness beer. [Laughter] Over many years, Os has founder of the Trinity Forum, which has been devoted to these developed a reputation as one of the sharpest thinkers and most questions, and is a pioneer of what is known as the Williams- honest contributors to civil society. He is someone who’s helped burg Charter on religious freedom. institutions flourish. He has also done as much to build the civil society conversation about religion in our time as perhaps any- We are also honored to have Professor Walter Russell Mead with one in the world. So we have some wonderful people here. us. He is one of America’s great public intellectuals, especially on foreign relations. He is the James Clark Chase Professor of For- I am not going to take up too much time here because I think eign Affairs and Humanities at Bard College and editor-at-large we’re all waiting to hear from Peter. After Peter has finished his and online director of the American Interest. From 1997 to 2010, remarks, I’ll ask Os to respond. If there’s anything at all left to he was the Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign say after that, I’ll try to shape up the state of the conversation and Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations. He is the author maybe ask the two of them to engage each other a little bit, at of the influential Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and which point we will throw it open to the floor for questions. But How It Changed the World, and God and Gold: Britain, America, thank you all for coming. I think we are going to have a really and the Making of the Modern World, a major study of 400 years wonderful experience. of conflict between Anglophone powers and their rivals. Walter

BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 7 PETER BERGER: Well, I think I should begin by letting you shoot out of the water other interpretations of the world. That’s in to two secrets. One is that Walter and I have what I think very much the case here. When I began my work in sociology teenage boys call a “pissing contest”—who can tell more jokes of religion—which as some of you know was about the time about a particular topic? [Laughter] I think it was in Washing- of Lincoln’s Second Inaugural [Laughter]—I believed in what ton a couple of years ago that he and I competed for about 40 everyone else believed. It came to be known as secularization minutes, if I remember it correctly, and all we talked about were theory, which has some very sophisticated expressions but a very Romanian jokes. Maybe we should drop everything and do that, basic thesis: the more modernity, the less religion. We thought instead of talking about the topic or the issue. [Laughter] we lived in an age of religious decline.

The other thing my grandmother told me is never to begin any It took me about 25 years to conclude that this was a mistake. address with an apology, but looking around I think I owe you We don’t live in a secular age. We live in a pluralistic age. This an apology. Why? I’m not wearing a tie. [Laughter] And the rea- does create specific challenges for every religious faith and ev- son is because I’m uncomfortable enough traveling around in ery religious tradition, but it’s a different challenge from that of a wheelchair because of very bad arthritis, and I may as well be secularity. comfortable further up my body. The secret I should let you in on is that I now work as a consultant for the Greek government, For the last few years, I and some other colleagues began a very which I think legitimizes that uniform. [Laughter] interesting conference in Germany. It was at the University of Muenster, where a professor by the name of Detlef Pollack What I intend to do in these remarks is to place the issue of reli- runs a program on religion and modernity. He’s been one of gious freedom, which happens to be an issue in which I believe the staunch defenders of secularization theory. He’s one of the very fervently, in the larger context of the religious landscape few people who still stick to secularization theory, and I have today. Any interpretation of the world begins with trying to criticized him. Yet we agreed on a lot of issues. One of the most

8 BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 important was that pluralism needs formulas of peace. We need modern society. Originally based on science and technology, it to learn how to create a situation where people manage to live now has much broader implications. The further implication, together without killing each other. One of the important events which I think is very important, is that this new paradigm al- in Western history was the Peace of Westphalia, which ended the lows us to not see religion and modernity in some kind of con- horrible religious wars in Europe between Catholics and Prot- flict. Most religious people do not see an either/or relationship estants. Pollack and I said that we’re doing a Westphalian peace between religion and modernity, but a both/and relationship. between secularization theorists and their critics, and we’ve kept They manage to be both religious and secular in different levels this up. It’s a very useful relationship. of sophistication. This immediately relates to religious freedom, because religious pluralism and the relationship between religion The basis of whatever I have to say about the religious landscape and secularity have to be politically managed, through what I and its implications for religious freedom comes from that sim- call “formulas of peace.” Religious freedom becomes an issue al- ple idea. We don’t live in a secular age. We live in a pluralistic most immediately once you begin thinking in those terms. age. I changed my mind about this—but, let me emphasize, not because of any religious or philosophical changes on my part. Now look, religious pluralism is not a totally new thing. It has Throughout my adult life, I’ve been a moderate but incurable existed on and off in different periods of history in different Lutheran, so it wasn’t some kind of new conversion experience countries. It always required some kind of political arrangement that led me to revise my theory of secularization. Instead, it had to make it livable. Edward Gibbon, in his History of the Decline to do with my reading of the evidence. I looked at religion all and Fall of the Roman Empire, neatly summarized how the Ro- over the world. That’s my gig. It’s impossible to say that we live man Empire managed the coexistence of different religions. I’m in a secular age. The empirical evidence just doesn’t allow it. We quoting Gibbon’s very famous passage: “The various modes of live in a furiously religious age with some interesting exceptions, worship, which prevailed in the Roman world, were all consid- which have to be explained. ered by the people, as equally true; by the philosopher, as equally false; and by the magistrate, as equally useful.” It’s a very sophisti- We really have a new paradigm of religion and modernity which cated, supercilious relation to religion, which I think could have focuses on pluralism, a pervasive phenomenon. I published my been written by a Confucian. I think it very much describes the ideas on this a little less than a year ago in a book called The classical Confucian scholars who were contemptuous of things Many Altars of Modernity: Toward the Paradigm for Religion in like Buddhism and popular religion. They knew better. One the Pluralist Age. Secularization theory wasn’t wrong altogether. could call this pluralism “tolerance by contempt” or “tolerance There are two pluralisms. There is pluralism in the usual sense of of pluralism on the basis of contempt.” Let me say in passing that the word, which means different religions all coexisting more or I think the religion policy of the People’s Republic of China is less at peace. If they don’t, it makes no sense to talk about plural- more Confucian at this point than Marxist, though it may be- ism. If the Shi’ites and the Sunnis are killing each other, or what come different under President Xi. Think of Gibbon’s formula. I Protestants and Catholics did during the Thirty Years’ War is oc- think it’s a good lens to think about China today. curring, that’s not what anyone means by pluralism. Pluralism is different religions coexisting, which is becoming more and more There were a number of different cases throughout history. There a feature throughout the world. were certain periods under the Caliphate of Córdoba in Mus- lim Spain, what they called the Convivencia, when Muslims, Since I’m at a Jesuit university, let me mention that a few weeks Jews, and Christians lived together in peace. Under the Mughal ago six Jesuits from Latin America came to see me. They wanted Emperor Akbar, Hindus and Muslims lived together in peace to discuss pluralism in Latin America, which simply is a very in India. In the better years of the Ottoman Empire, there was new idea for Catholics. These countries were considered to be some kind of religious pluralism, and the millet system did pro- Catholic countries, but they’re not monolithically Catholic any- vide certain freedoms and privileges to non-Muslims who were more. That’s a challenge not just for the Catholic Church, but second-class citizens, but they could flourish over long periods of for the self-understanding of these societies. time. Now in Western history, the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 ended the Thirty Years’ War and created a formula of peace. The But then there’s a second kind of pluralism, which is between formula of peace was a territorial formula. The ruler, prince, or religious discourse and secular discourse, and it’s inevitable in king would determine the religion of his country or state. Those

BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 9 who didn’t like it could leave, which was better than being killed it’s the most effective one—though, let me say again, it doesn’t or forcibly converted. have to be a translation of the First Amendment into Russian or Chinese or Bulgarian. There are different types of separation be- This territorial formula works fairly well as long as there is some tween religion and the state—some de jure, some de facto. Even kind of geographical division between faiths. But if there isn’t, in Western democracies there are significant differences, and I’m then it doesn’t work. For example, consider the Israeli-Palestin- sure we will discuss this in the next two days. ian conflict. Muslims, Jews, and Christians live in close proxim- ity in a small territory. This is not a very hopeful combination of Religious pluralism means that individuals are constantly con- religious freedom and the state. This is why, for practical reasons, fronted with others whose faith is different. Hare Krishnas chant even if one believes in religious freedom as a good in itself, which and dance in front of medieval cathedrals in Europe. Protestant I do, one should put one’s money on some kind of separation of missionaries from South Korea sneak into India or China with the state and religion. It doesn’t necessarily have to look like the Bibles hidden in their suitcases. Conversations with neighbors formula of the U.S. Constitution, but it should at least resemble and colleagues of other faiths are commonplace in America. it, where the state is not totally identified with a single religion. This leads to something I call “cognitive contamination.” If you talk to people in a friendly way long enough, you begin to be There are interesting in-between cases, like the United King- influenced by them. That’s true in religion as in anything else, dom. I like to talk about the United Kingdom because one of and that undermines something that has been true of religion the topics here is U.S. foreign policy, and the U.S. Commission through most of human history: the taken-for-granted nature of on International Religious Freedom has this wonderful phrase: a particular religious tradition. “countries of particular concern.” They make careful reports about I read somewhere—though I’m countries where one has reason to “We thought we lived in an age of not a classical scholar—that when be concerned about religious free- two strangers met in Ancient dom. I think they’re being careful religious decline. It took me about Greece and they wanted to know to talk both about our enemies 25 years to conclude that this was a where they came from, they would like Iran and our friends like Sau- mistake. We don’t live in a secular age. ask, “What gods do you worship?” di Arabia, who ironically resemble We live in a pluralistic age.” That’s analogous to asking today, each other. “What’s your zip code or your Peter Berger area code?” Depending on where Well, my question is an interesting you came from, you worshipped one. What does a country have to certain gods; it was simply taken do to not be of concern? I think one has to be concerned about for granted. There were some rebels like Socrates in Athens, but religious freedom in Russia. If you think there’s a concern about basically, if you were Athenian, you worshiped Pallas Athena. the United Kingdom, you have to be crazy. There’s as much re- ligious freedom in England as there is in any other Western de- But that is no longer possible. Religion was once taken for grant- mocracy. So should one be concerned that the queen is still the ed. We have lost that, and I think this is a fundamental conse- head of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury quence of pluralism. Christians shouldn’t necessarily deplore this has an important position, and the Anglican bishops sit in the consequence, if only for the simple reason that our situation is House of Lords? I think not. In a way it’s like a millet system very similar to that of the late Roman Empire, where Christiani- where the sultan was very, very tolerant of other religions. If the ty could not be taken for granted because it was totally new. And Patriarch of Moscow were to start to behave as the Archbishop when Paul preached in Athens, he mentioned the many altars of Canterbury now behaves, I don’t think we would have to be that he saw in Athens. He couldn’t appeal to tradition because concerned even if the Russian Orthodox Church is declared to what he was preaching was totally new. be an important part of the Russian soul. Now I have to emphasize that fundamentalism in this context In other words, whether for practical reasons or for philosophical is the attempt to stop that cognitive contamination and to re- reasons, I think emphasizing religious freedom is a very practical store religion to a taken-for-granted status in the state and in way of approaching the issue of pluralism. And in my opinion, people’s consciousness. This is very difficult to do—but this is

10 BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 good news. You either have to set up a totalitarian state that con- trols all communications—which is difficult—or set up a sort of mini-totalitarian state where you don’t have physical power to coerce people, but you have psychological power instead. In terms of the consciousness of individuals, pluralism and the loss of the taken-for-granted nature of religion has been enormously important.

For religious institutions—churches, synagogues, mosques, and others—everyone becomes a denomination. Richard Niebuhr defined a denomination as a church which recognizes the right of other churches to exist in practice, if not in theory. Everyone in America becomes a denomination, even Judaism—which, af- ter all, used to be the religion of a people. If you lived in a shtetl in the old Jewish Pale of Settlement in Russia, you had no choice but to be Jewish. You might not have liked it, since it was not a good thing to be Jewish, but there was no escape. In America now there are at least four Jewish denominations. If you count Walter Russell Mead the different Hasidic schools, you have even more, because each Hasidic school is in a way a denomination. Every religious group or anything like that, and it has about two lines in the report. in America becomes a denomination. The historically avant- One sovereign country in the world—the United States—gives garde character of the United States—a state that was both plu- grades from A to F to every other country in the world. That’s a ralistic and that legally guaranteed religious freedom—led to this remarkable development. It creates great difficulties for Ameri- situation. can diplomats. Diplomats, after all, are required to discuss the interests of their country with tyrants. It’s not very easy to inter- Speaking of Jews, there’s a wonderful American Jewish joke. rupt an amicable discussion about import duties on coffee with There is an American Jew who is stranded on a desert island all a little remark like, “By the way, you should stop persecuting so by himself. He builds two synagogues, one in which he prays, and so.” and the other in which he wouldn’t be caught dead. That is de- nominationalism. [Laughter] I talked to a young American diplomat in the embassy in Sofia whose job was to prepare reports on both religious freedom and A student of mine discovered 60 schools of Buddhism in the human rights. He hated it. He had to spend enormous amounts Greater Boston area, ranging from Tibetan Tantric Buddhism of time recording every incident of religious conflict or intoler- to Zen. The U.S. government, as was mentioned before, is ob- ance in Bulgaria. ligated by law to monitor and to advocate for religious freedom worldwide. Now that Ireland and Poland have been not-so-slow- The question, “What does a country have to be like to not be ly sliding toward Euro-secularity, the United States is by any em- of concern to the U.S. Commission on International Religious pirical criterion the most religious state among Western societies. Freedom?” raises very interesting philosophical questions in ad- It is also a democracy, and therefore it is inevitable that there dition to practical ones. Is there a minimum acceptable level of should be pressure on the government to represent the values— religious plurality before any outside observers will acknowledge religious and otherwise—of the citizenry within the limits set by that there indeed exists freedom of religion? What are the mini- the Constitution. It is also inevitable that this should be resented mum requirements before you stop being “concerned”? This as hubris, both by some of our friends and some of our enemies. may not be as easy as it first seems. However, given the place of religious rhetoric in American politics, the question, it seems to Some time ago, I talked with a Swiss diplomat about the annual me, has very interesting implications. report on human rights published by the State Department. He asked very angrily, “Who the hell are you to give me a grade of I have said enough about why religious pluralism has to be po- A?” Switzerland gets an A since there are no records of genocide litically managed. The secular space also has to be politically

BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 11 managed. Historically, the origin of secular space is science and technology, but it has spread into other areas. Science and tech- nology are not possible except in a secular discourse. There is no such thing as a Lutheran dentistry or a Presbyterian physics. There is only good physics or bad physics.

In Boston, I know a very successful Jewish surgeon who is a very friendly guy and whose patients love him. He wears a yarmulke in his practice and I think he’s very observant and very serious about his Judaism. His vocation is evident in the warmth he shows his patients and the interest he takes in them. He’s the prototypical, ideal Jewish doctor. But when he’s doing surgery, his faith becomes totally irrelevant in that moment. You can’t see if he has a yarmulke because he wears one of those doctor caps, and every move he makes has to be in a strictly secular discourse. If he’s worried about some move within the operation, he cannot consult the Talmud. If he did, he would be sued even by Ortho- dox Jewish patients.

Religion and secularity intersect in very interesting ways every- Os Guinness where and all the time. In Boston, some colleagues and I recently organized a conference on the hospital as a site of interaction Latin phrase etsi Deus non daretur—and thus become a secular between secular space—the medical system—and religion. The discipline without any theological presuppositions. Grotius did hospital is based on modern science and technology. There’s a this because he had no choice. He wrote in a Europe which was strict hierarchy. The physicians dressed in their long white robes divided between Protestants and Catholics. You had states de- constitute the clergy. Medical specialists sit on top as if they were fined as Lutheran, Anglican, or Calvinist. You had the Orthodox gods, and they have lesser clerics under their command. Further Christian Russian Empire. You even had the Muslim Ottoman down the chain there are masses of nurses and technicians. And Empire. If international law was to apply to all of them, it could lastly, the laity is often dressed in demeaning underwear, waiting not be in the name of any one single notion of God. and trembling about what sentence the hierarchs will pronounce on them. [Laughter] And Grotius, although he himself was a very pious Protestant in the Netherlands, created the format of a thoroughly secular Nevertheless, the hospital in modern democracies, certainly in discourse, which is now true of law today in the United States the United States, is constantly infiltrated by religion. For ex- and other modern countries. A judge, whether he is a federal ample, in the United States you have chaplains. There’s a won- judge or a state judge, has to make a judgment within the secular derful study of hospital chaplains by Brandeis sociologist Wendy context. He cannot suddenly inject his Baptist faith or whatever Cadge. It has the wonderful title Paging God: Religion in the Halls other religion he has into his decision. It’s not allowed because of Medicine. I also recently met a Buddhist chaplain in Beth Is- secular space is very important. Obviously, however, Americans rael Hospital in Boston. In addition to the chaplains, there are are the most litigation-prone people on earth and are therefore also informal religious contacts such as clergy attending to pa- constantly occupied with boundary negotiations between the tients, families praying, nurses having Bible study, and so forth. secularity of the law and various religious interests. In other words, in an emphatically secular institution, religion constantly comes in. Now, looking around the contemporary world, it is not difficult to find many cases—not just in a hospital—where even robust, Now, it’s not just science and technology. Hugo Grotius, who supernatural-oriented religions can coexist with the secular spac- lived from 1583 to 1645, was a Dutch jurist who helped shape es of modernity. Unlike so much of mainline Protestantism, the modern international law. He proposed that this discipline Roman Catholic Church has maintained such robust supernatu- should be developed “as if God did not exist”—he used the ralism. I’ll give you an example. Imagine the pope in his pope-

12 BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 mobile driving through the vast stretches of the Vatican State on a few miles from where the constitutional convention was sitting a mission which is clearly supernatural. Let’s say he’s proclaiming was the border of the Soviet Union, with its own horrors and vio- a new saint—an act that actually extends the authority of the lations of human dignity—perhaps not as bad in 1949 as a few pope into the other world. But if the popemobile unfortunately years earlier, but bad enough. They must have thought, “No, this does not start, who would his aides call? I’m sure the Vatican has is not what we want. These are not our basic values. It’s the dignity both an exorcism office and a big garage with car mechanics. I of man, which is the basic value from which everything comes.” think they will call the car mechanics and not the exorcist. This doesn’t mean that the pope doesn’t believe in the possibility of But what is the religious basis of this? Many of the people in exorcism; it’s just irrelevant for the problem at the moment. This that constitutional assembly were pious Christians. Catholic insight can be spun out in many ways, which I unfortunately social doctrine was important at that time and many of them have no time to do here. were very pious Protestants—though at the time Germany was less Protestant than it is now, since now the east has a rather But let me mention one other very important thing, and it also robust Protestant majority. But whether Catholic or Protestant, involves religious freedom. Increasingly, countries ask, “What the parties have called themselves Christian—and still do—but are the basic values and beliefs that we really insist upon as the not dogmatically. They were political parties appealing to not foundation of our nation and our state?” This is very much an just Catholics or Protestants, but to any citizen of the state. The issue that affects immigration policy in Europe today. I think no dignity of man certainly has a very interesting implication, and country can exist without certain common values that people ac- Christians and Jews certainly would have a religious legitima- cept and more or less follow. Otherwise, the country would col- tion for that statement. Why the dignity? Why is that inviolate? lapse from within and be completely helpless against aggression Because man is created in the image of God, and if you violate from the outside. What are the basic values, be they German or human dignity to the extent that the Nazis and communists did, French or Italian or whatever, that incoming immigrants, wher- you are spitting in the face of God. ever they come from, have to accept? But not all Germans are pious Christians at all—not then, and The United States is rather formal about this. People swear an not now. They had other reasons for asserting this basic princi- oath of allegiance upon becoming citizens, something I remem- ple: an understanding of the human condition and the nature of ber doing years ago and something which other countries don’t man, which has many Christian, biblical roots. But some people require. I think in Britain you just get a letter from the post office who do not accept these roots believe in them very fervently; in that says you are now a subject of the queen. [Laughter] But nev- fact, I know many of them. And that’s the interesting possibility: ertheless, there is now a discussion of British values, just as there that people may passionately affirm common values but for dif- is a discussion about English values and Scottish values. What ferent reasons, some of them religious and some of them secular. are the values that really are at the core of what we believe in? This has a very interesting implication for religious freedom. The political secular space can itself become a formula of peace, based Take the case of German Federal Republic. Its fundamental law, on a shared recognition of the equality of being human. the Grundgesetz, was promulgated in 1949, which was very soon after the establishment of the federal republic. Unlike the United WALTER RUSSELL MEAD: Well, that was a real tour States, where the Bill of Rights came a few years after the Con- d’horizon. Os, did it inspire any thoughts, responses, or ques- stitution in a separate document, in the German constitution tions in your mind? the Bill of Rights comes at the very beginning. It begins with a lapidary sentence that the dignity of men is inviolate: Die Wuerde OS GUINNESS: Thank you. It’s a tremendous privilege to be des Menschen ist unantastbar. This is, of course, a very powerful here. I did my doctorate on Peter’s work 40 years ago. statement. Everything else depends on the state preserving the dignity of men. PETER BERGER: You regretted it ever since. [Laughter]

The positioning of this sentence at the beginning has a historical OS GUINNESS: My family is Anglo-Irish, so I’m not Ameri- context, as this was just a few years after the collapse of Nazi Ger- can. But I would say very simply and straightforwardly that it many. The people who made the constitution were very aware of is time for America to stop squandering her heritage of religious being guilty of monstrous violations of human dignity. And just freedom and to do justice to the extraordinary tradition that she

BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 13 has. James Madison called the American way the true remedy servative conservatism. Today you can see that religious liberty is for religion, public life, and diversity. Not far from here, John F. attacked and even human dignity is no longer supported, partly Kennedy talked about the challenge of making a world safe for because of postcolonial ideas and partly because of postmodern diversity, just a few months before he died. Clearly, no one has ideas. Even human rights are seen as fiat rights; you can see a come closer than the American Republic. It is not perfect, con- dangerous severing of the roots of these ideas. Peter referred to sidering events such as past anti-Semitism, nativism, Philadel- this phenomenon at the end. But I think the crisis is far deeper phia riots, and things like that. But maybe it is the most nearly- than he was suggesting. The need for the legitimation of our perfect order in human history, combining diversity with liberty cultural roots is even stronger. and still achieving such harmony. What do I mean by unconservative conservatism? Anyone who Yet after 50 years of culture warring, America is squandering her loves freedom and the history of freedom can see this in Mon- heritage. I have the privilege of speaking on this topic here and tesquieu and in de Tocqueville. They pointed out that freedom is around the world. I’ve spoken in China, Russia, and many, many never guaranteed and protected by law alone, though law is pre- places. But while you can recommend America, she’s not doing cious and fundamental. It is also protected by what Montesquieu so well herself at the moment. Many of those countries would calls the spiritual freedom, or what his disciple de Tocqueville like to see a reverse report on religious freedom in America, calls “the habits of the heart”—in other words, civic education. which would be interesting. That has collapsed in America in the last 50 years. There are no “habits of the heart” left in many parts of the country over these I’d like to start with some simple points. First, I will underscore issues, and so conservatives are as litigious as liberals. Unwit- Peter’s main point on the challenge of pluralization. Pluralism is tingly, they’re undermining the very freedom, including religious putting enormous stress on all the traditional settlements of reli- freedom, which they need to defend. gion and public life. I think that when Prince Charles is crowned king in the future, we’re going to have a huge debate in Britain, The harder task, I would argue, would be that we need to as- because our settlement is under pressure. Likewise, the French sess models, options, or visions for going forward. As I see it, model of laicite is under pressure, and the American system is you really have two extreme models in the world today. The first under pressure. Most of the world’s settlements are under pres- extreme is a kind of sacred public square where one religion or sure, not only from the increase of pluralism, but from things another is preferred or established. Peter referred to England as like globalization, travel, immigration, the Internet, and social one mild example. You really couldn’t have a milder version of a media. All of these are creating this challenge of how to live with sacred public square than the Church of England. Countries like our deep differences. Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia are more severe examples. But all these versions of a sacred public square do not do justice to Secondly, I think in this country, America needs to reaffirm why pluralism. Even those who would like to restore the 1950s con- freedom of conscience is the first freedom, seeing as there are sensus in this country, such as the religious right, often do not do many intellectuals who no longer believe that. You can see elite justice to the pluralism that has increased since then. newspapers putting “religious freedom” in quotation marks or seeing it as a cover for bigotry. The proper understanding of it The other extreme is the naked public square, which excludes all is shamefully distant in many of the elite conversations taking religions from public life completely. We not only have a grow- place in many of the universities of this country. That is a scandal ing secular space; we have a growing belligerence of secularists, and a tragedy. The idea of the freedom of conscience as the inner who are growing in numbers as well. I want to make a strong forum which, when protected, guarantees the outer forum of the distinction between three terms: secularism, a philosophy; secu- public square and allows for a free, responsible, and robust civil larization, an increase of the secular space; and separationism, debate needs to be anchored back in the American consciousness a deliberate legal attempt to exclude religion from public life. from the top to the bottom. Religious freedom’s links to civil When those three converge—secularism with separationism and society and social harmony need to be stressed again. secularization—then you have something that looks like the na- ked public square. That’s disastrous for many, many reasons. Thirdly, we need to face some of the weaknesses that the cul- ture war has shown us in handling this issue. I’ll just mention a Of course, you have mild versions. The Americans have perhaps couple of them. One is illiberal liberalism, and another is uncon- the mildest form. The French are stronger, the Turks are even

14 BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 “This country has written incredible chapters in the history of religious freedom for people of all faiths, but the present generation is squandering that heritage. It is time for leaders today to rise up and insist on something far more true to America’s heritage, and far more effective and demonstrative for the whole world.” Os Guinness

stronger, and the Chinese and North Koreans are the strongest. In other words, we need a reaffirmation here in America of the But obviously a naked public square does not do justice to the fundamental first freedom—of freedom of conscience and reli- world’s pluralism. What does? gious freedom—from the administration across to the last per- son in this country. We need them to acknowledge that the last I would argue that the fulfillment and development of America’s 50 years of culture warring have been disastrous. Secondly, we heritage and promise is a civil public square where everyone of need a restoration of civility. Religious freedom must be sepa- every faith is guaranteed protection of their faith, or the freedom rated from all its misunderstandings and restored to its being a of conscience, in the full sense. This includes the right to adopt, virtue and a duty for citizens in a very diverse society. Thirdly, we to exercise, to share, and to change their faith. And obviously need a restoration of civic education. the third and fourth of those militate against some of the liberal views of proselytism and some of the more conservative Muslim As the much regretted Samuel Huntington said, it’s still rela- views of conversion. These protections reflect the UN’s Univer- tively easy to become an American, but it is increasingly difficult sal Declaration of Human Rights’ understanding of the right— to know what it means to be American because of the general which is not what the administration calls “freedom of worship.” disappearance of civic education in the last 50 years, especially in the public schools. De Tocqueville said at the end of his life that If this right is guaranteed for all, though, it has to be supported a revolution is rather like a novel; the hard part to invent is the by what’s often called the “three Rs”: the rights, responsibilities, ending. I think the American Revolution got religious freedom and respect that each person owes to everyone else. Civic educa- almost perfectly right from the beginning—unlike race, wom- tion must teach that the right for one person is the right for an- en, and various other things. This country has written incred- other person, and that there is a responsibility for both of them. ible chapters in the history of religious freedom for people of all So the right for a Christian is the right for an atheist. I would faiths, but the present generation is squandering that heritage. It insist that secularist world views are a religion too, since they is time for leaders today to rise up and insist on something far represent an ultimate belief. And I think the European formula- more true to America’s heritage, and far more effective and de- tion—freedom of conscience, thought, religion, and belief—is monstrative for the whole world. There’s a world problem today. clearer because it includes these secularist philosophies. And How do we live with our deep differences? some of the European atheists, like Jürgen Habermas, willingly admit that. So for seculars to exclude any religion from public WALTER RUSSELL MEAD: Well, those were two fascinating life is highly illiberal. presentations. I don’t want to take up much of the audience’s time. But I did want to make two observations. First, I really That notion of civility is often misunderstood today. It is often liked Os’ use of the phrase freedom of conscience. I think once confused with niceness. It’s confused with the sloppy, lowest- you talk to people about freedom, religious liberty, or freedom common-denominator ecumenism, as if we’ve all got to dialogue of religion, you actually are rubbing some people the wrong long enough, and we’ll eventually all believe the same things. way right from the beginning. But the phrase freedom of con- This is not true at all. Religious freedom is the freedom to be science really covers what we mean by religious liberty and also, faithful. It takes seriously that we’re living with differences, and of course, the right not to be religious. But I also think freedom there are very distinctive differences that make a huge difference of conscience implies the duty of conscience. That is, we believe to public life and to social life. Those are the very things that that freedom of conscience is important because we believe that we’ve got to debate freely and honestly in our public life. every human being has a duty to form and then to follow their

BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 15 conscience. This may be one way of linking the idea of ground- pression, individual invention, and even of ways of living, while ing an individual right in some sense of civic duty, which struck traditional Abrahamic societies have sought to impose confor- me as a tension in the remarks of both speakers. mity on the choices that individuals make in the name of the order that their Abrahamic faiths seek. The other thing I’d like to do is to provide a possible framing idea for some themes that were there in both talks. We’re seeing I have a couple of quick points here. One is that we ought to see in the world today the triumph of two somewhat linked but also secularism—in the ideological sense as opposed to the pragmatic somewhat opposed revolutions. One is the Abrahamic revolu- sense—as much like an Abrahamic religion without god. That is, tion. The other is the revolution of individualism that, as Peter there is one source of truth in science or nature, however you fo- noted, explains how there could be different truths or different cus it. Marx explicitly developed an Abrahamic world that didn’t gods in a polytheistic world like the Roman Empire or much have a god in it. But it had all the characteristics of Abraha- earlier. The laws in Athens and the laws in Sparta can be quite mic faith, including universalism and a vision of an apocalyptic different. No one feels troubled by that; it’s just the way things struggle at the end of history, which would see the creation of a are. But once you get this Abrahamic idea that there is one God secular kingdom. who made everything and who is a moral being, and not simply a powerful representation or personification of natural forces, In this way, the secular enlightenment is also a form of Abraha- then there is implicitly this concept of a moral order that ought mic faith, even if the faith is not in the deity of Abraham. There to be universal. And if Athenian laws do not reflect the will of the is a universal dimension in modern secular thinking. There is creator, there’s something wrong a moral sense to which we ought with Athens and it needs to be to conform ourselves. We ought changed. “Christianity, Islam, and Judaism to obey the dictates of reason. together comprise over 50 percent of There’s one truth everywhere. So what we’ve seen in the last world believers. So the idea of a universal Paris is not so different from few thousand years is the spread moral order has become a much more Delhi. In secular thinking, there of Abrahamic religion. While it important factor in international politics is one fundamental way of seeing was originally the religion of one the world. small group of tribes in the Mid- and in legitimizing the rule of states in dle East, it is today much more different parts of the world. ” When we think about freedom widespread. Christianity, Islam, of conscience in an Abrahamic and Judaism together comprise Walter Russell Mead world, we’re talking about an over 50 percent of world believ- inherent tension between the ers. So the idea of a universal various Abrahamic faiths—faiths moral order has become a much more important factor in inter- that by their nature seek to build world orders grounded on national politics and in legitimizing the rule of states in different moral, and in some cases religious, reflection. We’re also talking parts of the world. Unfortunately, as we may have noticed, those about an inherent tension between the Abrahamic faiths and the Abrahamic faiths don’t agree on all the details of the divine pro- world orders they build and the value of the individual. But this gram that needs to be implemented. So Abrahamism is, among tension is also one that inherently proceeds out of Abrahamic other things, an engine of conflict. ideas, because Abrahamism sees a direct relation between the creation of God and the individual personality. This is a quite But there is another element that is connected to Abrahamism difficult tension and contrast within Abrahamic thought. That’s that is also present: the individualistic revolution, which sees in- true whether we are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, secular, or in- dividuals as being the source or the seat of moral choice. The creasingly none of the above. Furthermore, one of the ways that individual is not thought of simply as an entity that owes duties Abrahamism is changing the world is that faiths like Hinduism to the state, but as an entity of transcendent importance that and others have been becoming more Abrahamic in the way that gives legitimacy to state law. Individualism is going to increase they organize themselves and understand themselves. pluralism, since individuals don’t come to the same conclusions. At the same time, a society that reflects the logic of individualism Now I’d like to open it up to the audience for comments, sugges- is going to be a permissive society that encourages individual ex- tions, and denunciations, whatever you like. But I would remind

16 BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 Judge Ken Starr and Os Guinness you all of the story of the young rabbinical student who, when other places much more. So where do you get this feeling that talking to his rabbi, got a little frustrated, because every time he we are squandering this American value? Thank you. would ask the rabbi a question he never got a straight answer. The rabbi would always answer with a question. He said, “Rabbi, OS GUINNESS: I’m not here to argue that America’s in bad why do you do this? Why don’t you just give me the answer? shape. But I would just say that, on the one hand, there has Why do you always answer a question with a question?” The been an enormous increase of people coming to America rabbi says, “What’s wrong with a question?” [Laughter] So think from all over the world. The idea that everyone is now ev- about that as you respond. erywhere is certainly true, and that has increased the impor- tance of people getting along with other people from different PREM JAIN: I’m a professor here in Georgetown. This ques- backgrounds. But in terms of the understanding of religious tion is for Mr. Guinness. I lived in India for about 30 years freedom among the American public and especially the elite, and then in America for about 40 years. I’ve been very much you just need to compare, say, the late Clinton years—when interested in the religions of different countries, including something like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was Buddhism and others. Mr. Guinness mentioned, quoting de passed with such an overwhelming consensus—with the cur- Tocqueville and others, that we are squandering the American rent debate this past year about religious freedom. Clearly the values on which the country has been founded. My experience misunderstandings are rife. As you were suggesting, Walter, in America is actually totally different. I’ve lived in the South, religious freedom without freedom of conscience is dismissed the Northeast, and elsewhere. My experience is that there’s as freedom only for the religious or freedom of worship. There much more religious freedom now than 40 years ago when I are all sorts of other distortions at the elite level that show a came. People are much more open about religions from dif- most incredible ignorance of religious freedom. ferent countries, and they accept people in their homes and

BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 17 I’m glad for the increase in tolerance, especially because of the And because he created everybody, everybody matters. They increase of people from all over the world. There is certainly tol- matter to God, the source of all being and all meaning. So there erance. But the elite’s justification of it and the culture wars show is a transcendent importance to each individual human being. that America has gone backwards. People are not objects; they are subjects because of God’s cre- ation of them. WALTER RUSSELL MEAD: We have another question. Nevertheless, as a practical matter, that’s very much in tension MUSTAFA AKYOL: This is a fascinating panel. Thanks to you with the kind of moral universalism that many Abrahamic faiths all. Walter, I have a question for you. First comes the Abrahamic enjoin. So you’ll find people saying, “Well, it’s precisely because revolution, then comes the individualistic revolution. But isn’t I’m Abrahamic that I’m following my own conscience and guide, there an individualistic component to Abrahamism? You point- and I’m going to live an openly gay lifestyle.” Then somebody ed this out by saying that the individual being is responsible to else says, “Well, I’m Abrahamic and that’s why I’m going to stone God and has personal morality. Therefore, can individualism and you for doing that.” So I think we have to say that there’s a ten- Abrahamism perhaps not be in conflict? Maybe individualism is sion in these values that doesn’t go away. We do have to ultimate- an emphasis on one aspect of Abrahamism. I’ve actually read ly recognize each of them as a fundamental value. And this is one that argument in your books and have been benefitting from it. of the reasons I think freedom of conscience is the key. What That’s why I want to ask if you would like to elucidate that aspect the Second Vatican Council did is reformulate ideas of religious of Abrahamism as well. Thank you. liberty. Liberty of conscience may be the key issue.

WALTER RUSSELL MEAD: Well, I would say that yes, the OS GUINNESS: Could I add something to that, Walter? My importance of the individual does proceed from an Abrahamic Jewish friends, like Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, argue that Judaism is a view, which posits that there is one God who created everybody. great combination of universalism and particularism. They don’t

18 BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 see themselves as being Judaist for the world. They’re Judaist for ists can agree with that, even if Christians or Jews have religious Jews. Now I think the Christian balance to that, as you suggest, reasons for their views on marriage. is freedom of conscience. So when Tertullian was the first one to talk about freedom of conscience, he says it meant un-coerced, On East Asia, let me tell you about an episode which I love. I voluntary, and free worship. This brings the universalism within don’t know if any of you knew Taitetsu Unno. He was an Ameri- certain bounds. And you mentioned that Vatican II advanced can Buddhist of Japanese origin. Actually, he was a priest of a this argument. But, of course, Roger Williams, William Penn, Japanese Buddhist School. He came from Hawaii and was a pro- and many, many other Baptists argued for that strongly in the fessor of religion at Smith College for many years. He gave a seventeenth century. lecture at Boston University some years ago on Buddhism and human rights. He was very much in favor of human rights on WALTER RUSSELL MEAD: Absolutely. I’m here at George- Buddhist grounds. I asked him, “Tai, how can you say that? I town, so I thought I should say something about Vatican II. mean, as far as I know, every school of Buddhism believes that [Laughter] Thanks for the hospitality. the self is an illusion. How can the self have rights?” He stopped for a moment and said, “But I’m an American.” [Laughter] At PETER BERGER: Walter, I’d like to disagree with you on the first I thought this was a silly answer, but then I thought it wasn’t Abrahamic business. Buddhists and Hindus in particular of- silly at all. He somehow had to merge his Buddhist view of the ten blame monotheism for all the evils in the world, which is world with these very American, Abrahamic notions about in- ironic given the lack of compassionate and tolerant religions dividual rights. So this synthesis is not impossible, and it’s very coming out of South and East Asia. Look at what’s happening interesting and important. in the world today. Last week a Hindu mob killed a Muslim somewhere in India, because he was accused of eating beef. Is I totally agree with using the phrase freedom of conscience, this Hindu compassion? The Buddhist monks are encouraging which is a wonderful phrase, rather than freedom of religion. mobs in Myanmar to kill Muslims. In Sri Lanka, they stopped Many of us say that this means freedom of religion, but it can their civil war for the moment. But until recently, Buddhist also be used by people who are not religious. monks were encouraging Sinhalese to kill Tamil Hindus. So I am not convinced of this wonderful world of non-Abrahamic YOSSI SHAIN: I’m a professor here at Georgetown and inter- religions. ested in the subject matter. I’ll begin by asking about the free- dom of conscience that you are referring to. The French Supreme Os, you identified the naked public square—that a friend, Rich- Court, as you very well know, issued a 2011 ruling which pro- ard Neuhaus, made famous—as being a sort of evil thing. Well, hibits the burka. It used the phrase freedom of conscience, which if the naked public square means that religion is not allowed to has to be secondary to freedom of thought. As a result of that have a public voice, I agree. I agreed with Richard, and I agree ruling, if you wear a burka in France, it means you are delusion- with you. But the public square has to be secular, and in that al, like a Marxist. Freedom of thought prescribes an open society. sense it has to be naked. That’s a good thing. People can, as I That’s exactly what the French said in 2011: that freedom of tried to articulate before, accept that secular space and then in- conscience comes second to freedom of thought. ject it with their own religious values. But in order to be heard, and especially in order to enforce the laws, they have to translate That relates to your first point, Peter, regarding modernization. these religious values into a secular discourse. It is understood in Will Herberg’s book on the triple melting pot, Protestant-Catholic-Jew, which described modernization as I want to give a concrete example. Why do we have doubts a system in which all the religious denominations in America about same-sex marriage? It’s not necessarily because one thinks adjust themselves to the civic creed and to liberalism. The ques- God hates homosexuals or anything like that. But the question tion is: If there is a challenge to that concept itself, is there really is about what is best for our children: a man and a woman in a challenge there? Do you see that fact today, in a world where charge of them, or two men or two women? There’s some mate- Christianity is under assault in parts of the world and thousands rial on that. One can have a religious belief that God wants het- are murdered and excluded? erosexual monogamy. My hunch is that God doesn’t care about it way one way or the other. But there are secular reasons for pre- What does the freedom of conscience mean? Does it mean what ferring certain traditional institutions. People who are secular- Peter said, that primarily secularism will prevail and under secu-

BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 19 larism everybody else can express themselves? Or will something communities that are trying to protect their own faith commu- else emerge that will challenge the domination of secularism and nities in that direction? freedom of thought in our society? PETER BERGER: I have had quite a few discussions with Muslims PETER BERGER: I think it’s important to distinguish secular- in recent years. Well, I cannot tell Muslims what they should believe. ity from secularism. Secularism is a creed and an ideology which But in the context of anti-jihadism, or rejecting the kind of persecu- wants to banish religion as far as possible from society—certainly tion of Christians or other minorities that you referred to, I always from any public expression. In this view, you can pray to your begin with the fact that every single chapter in the Qur’an begins silly gods in private; that would be the attitude. But in public, no with this formula: “In the name of God, the Most Compassionate, religion is allowed, and certainly not in any intellectually respect- the Most Merciful.” Before anything else is said in the Qur’an, there able circles. That can have a horribly totalitarian form, like in the comes that statement in Arabic: Bismillah al Rahman al-Raheem. old Soviet Union, China during the Cultural Revolution, or Alba- What does that mean? Is this at the core of your faith, or is it ac- nia—the only country in the world where all religions were pro- cidental that every chapter of the Qur’an begins with that? There are hibited during the communist regime. But there are milder forms ways of promoting tolerance and acceptance of other faiths through of secularism, like silly people who are deeply offended if a Christ- this message. I think it’s possible in Buddhism, and it’s possible in Is- mas tree is planted in a public park in Indiana. That’s secularism, lam. It wouldn’t be the same reasoning as a Christian or a Jew would but it’s on a low level. It doesn’t have. But these different reasons really threaten anybody seriously. can yield a strong affirmation of “I don’t think we could live in the same basic values that are in But secularity means something the German Constitution. That else. Secularity means there are a modern society without such would be my response to that. spaces that use ideas, concepts, secular spaces—whether it’s science, and discourses which are not spe- technology, the law, or the marketplace. WALTER RUSSELL MEAD: cifically religious. I don’t think Do you not sell a house to a person Any closing thoughts, Peter? we could live in a modern society whose religion you don’t believe in? I without such secular spaces— think you would sell the house. It’s a PETER BERGER: Yes, one whether it’s science, technology, secular transaction.” closing thought. I wrote this the law, or the marketplace. Do book which, if you are praise- you not sell a house to a person Peter Berger worthy enough to read it, tells whose religion you don’t believe you absolutely nothing about in? I think you would sell the my religious beliefs. [Laughter] house. It’s a secular transaction. It’s an exercise in pure Bavarian social science, value free and ob- jective, which I strongly believe in. But I’m not completely value WALTER RUSSELL MEAD: I think we have time for one free. I am, as I said before, a Christian of rather mildly Lutheran more question. Then what we’ll do is we’ll try to answer that form. I wrote an essay which will be published, a Christian post- question, and the panelists, if they have concluding remarks, will script to my book, The Many Altars of Modernity. make them. The basic message to Christians or any other religious believers MONICA TOFT: I’m Monica Toft. I’m a professor at the Uni- is: Don’t be afraid of pluralism. It’s good for you. It’s good for versity of Oxford. I love this idea of freedom of conscience as you for three reasons. I’ll only mention the third, which I think an American Catholic post-Vatican II idea. But it doesn’t get is the most interesting. Pluralism, because of the phenomenon over the problem that was alluded to earlier about conversion of cognitive contamination, which I referred to in my earlier re- and proselytizing in communities that are trying to protect their marks, forces you to distinguish between the core of your faith communities, or states that are trying to protect their faith. In and the things that are more marginal—which are negotiable real, practical terms, how do you get around that? Freedom of and which you can surrender to this contamination. conscience is not going to get around that when you can’t pros- elytize or convert in certain societies. Peter, you talked about the Rabbi Hillel the Elder, one of the founders of Rabbinic Juda- secular square. How do we move other societies and other faith ism and Jewish law, was once asked—I think mockingly—to

20 BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 Sue Taylor and Gloria Maria Moran Garcia

explain the meaning of Torah while standing on one leg. And can be misunderstood as purely internal, just as freedom of wor- he did. I don’t know if he chose the right formula. He chose ship by itself can be made purely internal. Whereas I think if we the first known formulation of the Golden Rule. His version look at the UN declaration, you have four very tough rights: the is, I think, “Don’t do unto others what you’d hate to be done right to adopt, the right to practice, the right to share—that’s the to you.” I’m not sure if that’s the core of Torah. I would have whole notion of proselytism, which in some societies is unimagi- chosen the Shema, the basic Jewish confession of faith—“the nable—and the right to convert—and that’s against the Muslim Lord is our God, and the Lord is one”—which antecedes all notion of blasphemy and conversion. the moral teachings. But I think that is a very useful exercise. This is a very tough-minded concept. But if we unpack it, then When modern biblical scholarship invaded theological faculties the challenge is, how on earth do we do it with so many people in Germany, Europe, and also in the United States, Christians of different faiths all in one country? That’s why I think we need were forced to ask that question. If not every sentence in the Bi- to talk together about how to live with these deep differences. It ble is an inerrant scientific fact, then what can we do away with? will not be resolved by law alone. So America should be in the That question was extremely useful. When you keep asking that business of saying, “Look, we are more diverse than ever. How question, certain things take on a different form. If you push can we take this brilliant notion of freedom, which has been so me against the wall, if you wake me up at 2:00 in the morning, incredible, and expand it in our time, and still achieve justice, what do I really believe? That’s a very useful thing, and that’s the diversity, and social harmony?” So that’s the challenge. I thought consequence of pluralism. It doesn’t make for relativism or for an your question was fascinating, Monica. Unfortunately, we didn’t “anything goes” mentality. It’s a reflection on what is essential. have time to discuss the epistemology of thought, conscience, and freedom. WALTER RUSSELL MEAD: Os, closing thoughts? WALTER RUSSELL MEAD: We would like to thank everyone OS GUINNESS: Let me respond to the earlier question. I like for participating in the forum. Peter and Os were brilliant, as the two phrases together, freedom of conscience or religious free- usual. [Applause] dom. I prefer to unite them. Freedom of conscience by itself

BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 21 The Case for Religious Freedom Policy

DANIEL PHILPOTT: Thank you for being with us for this We’re pleased to have with us Sofia Lemmetyinen, who has a policy dialogue. One of its purposes is to encourage a trans- very rich background in studying religion and global politics, as atlantic dialogue over religious freedom policy. We live at a well as deep practical experience. She is the program manager time in which religious freedom is debated and on the agen- at the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights da more than any other time in recent memory. We want unit of the European Commission’s Directorate for International to begin by asking: Why should we have religious freedom Cooperation and Development, where she is in charge of issues in the first place? What is the reason for having a religious relating to freedom of religion or belief. freedom policy? Is it necessarily a good idea? What good does it do? Finally, we have my good friend, Allen Hertzke, who has been writing about religious freedom policy for many years now. He’s We’re very fortunate to have three very distinguished panelists one of the world’s great experts. He is the Presidential Professor who represent the diversity of perspectives on religious free- of Political Science at the University of Oklahoma and a faculty dom policy. Let me first introduce Mustafa Akyol, who is the fellow in religious freedom for the university’s Institute for the opinion editor and columnist for Turkish Daily News, Turkey’s American Constitutional Heritage. He is an associate scholar foremost English language daily. He’s also the author of a won- with the Religious Freedom Project here at Georgetown as well. derful book, which is one of my favorite books in the whole area of religion and global politics: Islam Without Extremes, an So let’s think about the case for religious freedom policy. Of- inspiring read and an inspiring case for freedom in Islam. I ten, advocates of religious freedom policy make two different recommend it to everyone. His articles have also appeared in kinds of arguments. There is a principled argument, which is other major publications, including the Washington Post and the turf of philosophers and theologians: Why is religious free- the Wall Street Journal. dom a universal value? Is it a universal value? Is it something

22 BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 that is inherent in human dignity or is it just a product of cul- was an American project. Many people criticized it for that, as tural consensus at a particular time and place? But then there’s a if this was America imposing its particular constitutional values second question about the consequentialist, policy-oriented case and historical experience on everyone else. But now it looks like for religious freedom. What good does it do? What goods does Europeans are embracing it. What led Europeans in the Euro- it bring about? Does it make a difference for things like security, pean Union context to say that freedom of religion and belief reduction of terrorism, democracy, other human rights, eco- was important? Why did they decide to adopt that? nomic growth, the advancement of women’s opportunities, and so forth? In other words, is religious freedom valuable because it SOFIA LEMMETYINEN: Thank you, Dan. Well, can I chal- promotes these other goods? lenge us to go a bit further back in history? I think that when we look at the European project and what is today the European I want to begin with that second question. What good does re- Union comprised of 28 EU member states, we have to remem- ligious freedom do for countries around the world? If you’re try- ber that the roots and the history of the union go back to the ing to make the case to a country about why it should adopt post-world war situation in Europe. Europe came out from a religious freedom—even if it doesn’t quite agree in the cultural terrible world war and witnessed atrocious violations of human and religious sense—what might you say? Let’s start with Allen rights, including freedom of religion or belief, as we all know. I Hertzke. You’ve been making this case for religious freedom for think this element of freedom of religion or belief, even though quite a while. What good does religious freedom do, Allen? it’s not that often stated explicitly, actually is at the core of the European project and the pro- ALLEN HERTZKE: Well, I cess of European integration. did a TEDx talk at my univer- “We ought to be uplifting people around sity. I started by asking the au- the world—civil society actors, heroes It is true that the European Coal dience to imagine a social force, of conscience, religious dissidents, and Steel Community that was a potent X factor, that reduces persecuted religious minorities—to established in 1952 was looking violence, increases stability, pro- at a very specific area of cooper- motes human rights, empowers have a voice. We should provide the ation: steel and coal. One would women, and increases interre- megaphone to those people to exercise think: Why on earth would that ligious harmony. Imagine that their voice.” have anything to do with free- potent force. Surely, govern- dom of religion or belief or ad- ments would want to promote Allen Hertzke vancing human rights? But it’s it. NGOs would want to defend through this work of coopera- it. In fact, we do have great em- tion between states, which were pirical evidence that nations that generously protect freedom of previously fighting each other in world wars, that this ground conscience and religious freedom actually are more economical- could be laid. ly viable, more stable, have greater interreligious harmony, and have less regional instability. In other words, religious freedom DANIEL PHILPOTT: Steel and coal were the war industries, actually does promote economic development, peace, stability isn’t that right? and interreligious amity. It’s just striking to me how at the very time when religious freedom is under assault around the world, SOFIA LEMMETYINEN: That’s correct. I would also like to the best empirical evidence and events on the ground confirm stress that the element of diversity that was alluded to in the first its value. keynote panel is also at the core of what it means to be European today. DANIEL PHILPOTT: Sofia Lemmetyinen, you work for the European Union. Only a couple of years ago, fascinatingly, the But now I’ll get to your specific question on how those 2013 European Union incorporated freedom of religion and belief EU Guidelines on Freedom of Religion or Belief came about. into its foreign policy goals. Now that’s interesting, because for It’s true that this is a relatively new development. Before those a long time after the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act guidelines, we also published council conclusions on freedom was passed in the United States, it looked like religious freedom of religion or belief with regard to the EU’s External Action in

BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 23 2009 and 2011. I think this was a result of developments in the MUSTAFA AKYOL: Let me first say one thing. The first time world. We witnessed the Arab Spring, where we saw an increase I got acquainted with discussions in the United States about in attacks on religious freedom. There is ample evidence, as we’ve religious freedom, which was maybe 15 years ago, I had what heard, of increasing violence and the ways that freedom of reli- you’d call an “aha moment.” I found it interesting that Ameri- gion or belief can be violated in conflict. I think all of those ele- cans care about religion, because in Turkey, the Middle East, and ments brought together EU member states to discuss this matter the broader Muslim world, the notion of freedom has gener- in the field of external action. ally come from Western Europe and France in particular. Ideas from the French Enlightenment were transferred to us. Freedom DANIEL PHILPOTT: So there was already a commitment to always sounded like freedom from religion and freedom from freedom of religion coming out of the European experience, but God, which was manifest in the banning of the headscarf and then certain events in the world activated it, in a sense. the closing of some traditional Islamic institutions. Liberalism, through the lens of these kinds of programs and campaigns for SOFIA LEMMETYINEN: Yes. freedom, sounded anti-religious. When I studied the U.S. ex- perience, I noticed that they’re saying freedom of religion. So DANIEL PHILPOTT: Was there resistance or debate over this? they think religion is a value. That’s interesting. Of course, more Did some people say, “This is not what we should be emphasiz- people are noticing that. And I think that’s a better form of mo- ing?” dernity to present to pious peoples in the Middle East.

SOFIA LEMMETYINEN: That’s a good question. I think that Speaking of Islam and Islam’s attitude towards religious freedom, one has to bear in mind that the European Union is a hybrid ani- I want to say one thing. In the Abrahamic hall of religions, every mal. It has many institutions. I work for the European Commis- new religion defines the preexisting ones. The New Testament, for sion, which is in charge of both implementing policies and also example, defines Judaism—though not in positive terms, as I un- proposing legislation and budgets. derstand, which caused some ten- But we also have the EU member sion between Jews and Christians states. We heard from the previous “The more principled the proponents for centuries. Luckily, those ten- panel about the rich history and sions have been worked out. And of religious freedom are—and I think diversity and differences in their Islam comes later and defines both constitutional setup, and also the many of them are—the better it will Judaism and Christianity. That differences in how states deal with be for evangelizing those values, if definition gives us some strength religion. So it wasn’t an obvious as- you will, to other parts of the world.” for religious freedom, but it some- sumption that religious freedom times gives us some problems and would be a topic to look at. But I Mustafa Akyol obstacles. On the one hand, Islam think that developments around defines these preexisting monothe- the world, as well as advocacy from isms with the term People of the civil society organizations and counterparts in the United States Book. These are communities that Islam accepts, so they have and other countries, persuaded us that religious freedom is a very the right to flourish and have churches and synagogues in the important issue. We realized that we needed to look at it in a more Muslim world. And that’s why there have been Christian and systematic fashion in our external policy, including in develop- Jewish communities in the predominantly Muslim Middle East ment cooperation, which is the area that I work in. for 14 centuries. They do not banish Coptic Christians, Palestin- ian Christians, or other groups. Actually, these minorities had a DANIEL PHILPOTT: Mustafa Akyol, how do we best make harder time in the twentieth century, mostly because of national- the case for religious freedom in the Muslim world? There’s no ism. I mean, Ottomans lived with Armenians for six centuries. better person to ask about this than you, because you’ve made In the nationalist zeal and era of modern nation states, unfortu- this case. What kinds of arguments are most likely to win, espe- nately, we wiped out the Armenians in a great tragedy. cially in the face of widespread beliefs about apostasy and blas- phemy, and even the inclination to associate the death penalty So on the one hand, you have the People of the Book idea, which with those things? How do we best connect with the Muslim is a good basis. As Professor Berger pointed out, it created the world on religious freedom? millet system, a system of nations defined by their respective reli-

24 BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 Of course, it’s hard to explain this to the Saudi or the Iranian government. They want to keep those rules. But there is cer- tainly a more reformist approach to that topic using very solid theological arguments. I think the best argument against the ban on blasphemy and apostasy is to say that you can’t make people Muslims by force. You can make them hypocrites at best. And hypocrisy is worse than disbelief according to the Qur’an. So freedom of conscience is the only basis on which a genuine reli- giosity can flourish. As I said, a lot of Muslims are persuaded by this. Some of them are not, and we’re trying to persuade them.

DANIEL PHILPOTT: It seems to me that one of the core points you’re making is that religious freedom can be portrayed in a way that is good for religion. In other words, when religious freedom is portrayed in a way that tries to marginalize religion or sideline it—maybe that’s more like the French model—then you can see why it would raise great objections. But if you can see religious freedom not as an imposition of something that is alien, but as, in fact, a good thing for Islam—that Islam will Allen Hertzke flourish more if there is religious freedom—then that could be gions. But on the other hand, that traditional idea did not make part of the ticket. Jews and Christians equal. They were not equal citizens. That’s why today when you go to Egypt, you can still have some dis- MUSTAFA AKYOL: Indeed, which means that when Western cussions about whether non-Muslims can be the head of state. governments have a policy of religious freedom, it should not be Does sharia allow that? So you have those tensions. The Otto- framed in a way that it will be misperceived in the Muslim world mans had actually made Jews and Christians equal citizens in the as something that’s about the Christian minorities only. Well, nineteenth century, which was a very important reform, I think, Muslim majorities sometimes have religious freedom problems in the history of Islamic civilization, and it should be kept. But because of their oppressive governments. I actually see the pro- some Muslim movements today are way behind the Ottoman gression toward an improvement there in the United States reforms of the nineteenth century. That’s one obstacle. Commission on International Religious Freedom. In Turkey, for example, the commission focuses on the ban on headscarves as The other obstacle is the matter of conversion, because it was a violation of religious freedom of the majority, along with the assumed that there’s a hierarchical universe. Muslims are here. problems affecting our Christian minority. The perception that Jews and Christians are here. Conversion from Judaism and there is a sort of Western double standard about these values, Christianity into Islam was welcome—not forced, but welcome. which is sometimes true, is an obstacle to advancing those values But conversion the other way was generally not tolerated, which in other parts of the world. People say, “Oh, this is a cynical brings us to the problem of apostasy. agenda that we’re not buying.” The more principled the propo- nents of religious freedom are—and I think many of them are— In my book Islam without Extremes: A Muslim Case for Liberty, I the better it will be for evangelizing those values, if you will, to have a whole chapter on that issue, called “Freedom from Islam.” other parts of the world. I make the case that some other progressive thinkers and scholars in the Muslim world are making. Actually, the ban on apostasy— DANIEL PHILPOTT: Well, that brings up my next question. which is not in the Qur’an but comes from the secondary sources We live in this interesting time where so many of the Western and from the time that sharia was made—is actually based on very democracies are in some way incorporating religious freedom communalist logic. If you leave our community, maybe you will into their foreign policies, as is the European Union. Let’s take become our enemy; maybe you’ll join and be a fighter against us. for granted that religious freedom is a good thing, whether on It was high treason to the community, which is a good way to intrinsic or instrumental grounds. But that doesn’t necessarily reinterpret that limitation on blasphemy and the death penalty. mean that it’s a good thing for individual states to go around

BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 25 making themselves the promoters of it. Peter Berger brought up whether there’s a double standard or not. I’m just speaking of the this dynamic of the United States giving everybody a grade. Isn’t broader framework. there something perhaps a little bit presumptuous about that, to kind of sit in our State Department and grade everybody, saying, But again, I’ve been pointing to the United States Commission “Here’s your score”? I mean, are there pitfalls to the United States on International Freedom and its reports to say that they pro- or any other country making themselves the promoters of reli- vide an honest evaluation of the facts in our country. The more gious freedom, especially in terms of how it would be received in principled the approach is, the better it will be understood. I, the Muslim world or in Turkey? What advice would you give to of course, make a distinction between governments and institu- the United States in terms of how to go about religious freedom? tions that are really committed to these values and those that are not, because governments are so realpolitik. They have their MUSTAFA AKYOL: Well, I think U.S. standards regarding re- concerns. But I think civil institutions are really committed to ligious freedom are quite high compared to the rest of the world. doing a better job in terms of articulating these values. So I don’t hear too much criticism of the United States about promoting religious freedom in the world but not having reli- DANIEL PHILPOTT: Allen? gious freedom at home. Of course, there are issues in the United States, too, but generally I can point out that there are Ameri- ALLEN HERTZKE: I think in a way there’s a Westphalian cans who wear headscarves, and there are Muslims who are free premise in your question, because it’s as if states are the major to open their mosques. So why should Muslims not have the players in promoting religious freedom. In a sense, we hope that same freedom in Saudi Arabia? Sometimes when you get into the the U.S. government will uphold high standards about the kinds broader issue of democracy, the United States promotes democ- of things that Muslims are talking about. But I also hope that the racy and opposes dictatorships. But the dictators who are anti- United States, the European Union, Brazil, and other countries United States have a different way of being evaluated sometimes around the world that have high standards of religious freedom in Washington. That creates a lot of question marks regarding promote civil society actors and give a megaphone to those who

26 BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 are, in fact, making the case passionately. These countries should What do you think, Mustafa? Is this two-voiced American re- defend persecuted religious minorities—“heroes of conscience,” sponse confusing? Does it work? as I like to call them. MUSTAFA AKYOL: Of course, a lot of people, especially in the In fact, as I was listening to Mustafa, it struck me how over the Middle East, can’t figure out that there’s a government and then past decade I probably had some of the most powerful conversa- there are separate institutions that really are not controlled by tions with Muslim heroes of conscience. People like Abdolkarim the government. That’s very surprising to people in certain parts Soroush, who is making the case in very dangerous circumstances of the world. They don’t actually believe in that separation. They for freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. He is basical- ask, “Come on, who’s running this?” They think there should ly saying that theocrats create hypocrites. Theocrats don’t create be one person in control. Sometimes the government’s voice is authentic Islam. In fact, it’s terrible for Islam to have a theocratic lumped together with the American voice or the Western voice. regime determine what is orthodox in Islamic practice. Of course, that’s a hard problem to get over. But what you can do is show the diversity of opinions and try to explain that there To me, we ought to be uplifting people around the world—civil are different positions. When I visited the United States, I was society actors, heroes of conscience, religious dissidents, perse- really surprised that Americans actually have a lot of different cuted religious minorities—to have a voice. We should provide ideas—just like us in Turkey and the Middle East. But they can the megaphone to those people to exercise their voice. And in institutionalize those different ideas, unlike us. that way, our policies will not be policies of the U.S. State Depart- DANIEL PHILPOTT: It seems ment per se speaking to Pakistan. that the European Union would be It will be civil society actors in the “Even if you deny tradition and almost the ideal entity to give reli- United States, as well as govern- religions, we create new ones. gious freedom more of a multilateral mental actors, speaking to people We need to create deities…this cast. When I was in graduate school, in Pakistan who are raising the issue is such a fundamental part of thinking back to those days and themselves. human nature. ” those seminar rooms, they called the EU a supranational entity, a pooling DANIEL PHILPOTT: That’s an Mustafa Akyol of sovereignty. So it would maybe interesting argument, Allen, because give religious freedom more cred- you’ve been the champion of the In- ibility if it were viewed as a shared ternational Religious Freedom Act value. But does the European Union over the years. You’re broadly sympathetic to it. If you lift up ever get criticized for imposing religious freedom? Or is religious civil society actors, does that mean the governments are more freedom seen as a consensual value there? handicapped? Should they even get out of the religious freedom business? SOFIA LEMMETYINEN: Well, indeed, the European Union is criticized as well on how the situation looks in the European ALLEN HERTZKE: No. I don’t think governments should get Union. This is something that comes across in human rights dia- out of it. I don’t think they’re mutually exclusive. In other words, logues, for instance, with countries and organizations. Indeed, if the State Department or the United States Commission on there’s the supranational element in the European Commission, International Religious Freedom speaks with clarity, fairness, but there’s an intergovernmental element in the Council of the and empirical force, then it seems to me that will also help to European Union comprised of the 28 EU member states. There’s empower the civil society actors. also the European Parliament, which is there to defend citizens’ rights and views. I just want to highlight the plethora of actors The United States is unique in that while we have a State De- on the European scene. partment with all of its realpolitik considerations, we do have a watchdog commission that can speak truth to power and pro- But I would like to add something to what Allen said before on the vide a greater megaphone to heroes of conscience. I think it’s type of actors and on who represents and who speaks on behalf of just interesting that we have that framework. It seems to work Europe, the United States, or other countries. I think the role of pretty well. civil society is very, very important. I can’t stress that enough. The

BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 27 European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights that I’m that on the table. We might have many other actors that we are managing with my colleagues actually focuses on supporting civil not naming today but that we need to take into consideration, society actors—be they individual human rights defenders, faith- because promoting freedom of religion or belief worldwide is based organizations, or secular organizations promoting freedom quite a big challenge. of religion or belief outside the European Union. MUSTAFA AKYOL: I just want to touch upon something We have a number of projects that are ongoing. There’s not slightly different. The issue is one that Allen said at the very be- only a political dialogue between the governments, but there are ginning when he mentioned his TED talk. Religious freedom is many, many other issues and processes that go on in the field, actually an antidote to a lot of the problems we’re facing, includ- sometimes very low on the radar. We don’t know much about ing religious extremism. That is sometimes a hard sell because them. We can’t talk too much about them because these are very people will tell you, “Wait a minute. Will we allow the extrem- sensitive issues, and in order to protect the safety and security of ists to go and speak their minds?” I admit that there is a limit to the individuals and organizations in question, publicity might extremist propaganda if it incites violence, like if it says, “Go and have to be limited. But indeed, there is a strong commitment kill these people because they’re infidels.” If you pump that sort by the EU to support civil soci- of ideology into society, there can ety in this field. We had a call for be a limit to that. proposals in 2013 for five million “I would add that we always add the euros and we have another call word ‘belief’ to freedom of religion But we should not forget that ex- coming up in 2017 for another or belief. This is a term that we use tremists are generally motivated five million euros. consistently within EU and policy by the perception that they are circles. It’s very important that when persecuted. Their common mo- ALLEN HERTZKE: Can I add tivation is that they are under one thing? we approach this issue…we deal attack—and they are sometimes with it in a very broad and inclusive under attack. I mean, you see it DANIEL PHILPOTT: Yeah. Go way: freedom of thought, conscience, if you look at the jihadist move- ahead. religion, or belief. I think that’s ments in the Middle East. If you important.” go back a few years before they ALLEN HERTZKE: I think the began an armed struggle, you other dimension that is underes- Sofia Lemmetyinen see that a secular Arab dictator timated but vital is the scholarly crushed them and tortured them. dimension, the fact that there is a And in prison they decided that growing cadre of serious empirical scholarship by think tanks, the time is now for jihad. So in that sense, yes, there’s a concern independent scholars, and so forth. It’s a global enterprise. And about extremist propaganda. But the very origin of extremism so you think about the fact that the Pew Research Center actu- often begins with the lack of freedom for people with a very ally publishes these fabulous empirical reports on global restric- conservative worldview, who could have existed peacefully. tions on religion, which provide empirical data for analyzing the When they feel suppressed, they get more violent. impact of religious freedom. There’s a wonderful kind of col- laborative, interactive relationship between scholars, advocates, DANIEL PHILPOTT: We’ll be hearing more about that this policymakers, and civil society actors that I think creates a his- afternoon from Nilay Saiya. He’s done some very interesting re- toric level of support for religious freedom. We’ve never had that search on this. But is there a sense in which religious freedom before. could be seen as the solution to that problem? If you have reli- gious freedom, would these people be less likely to experience SOFIA LEMMETYINEN: I think we need to keep that audi- that kind of persecution? ence open and those actors open. One other actor I didn’t men- tion, but I think has a key role to play, is the independent nation- MUSTAFA AKYOL: Yes. We need religious freedom and po- al human rights institutions. They play a key role in monitoring litical freedom, too, because in the Middle East it’s all mixed. and reporting human rights violations in the third countries and Extremists are sometimes suppressed for political reasons, but also in holding governments accountable. So I just want to put they are often religiously motivated in that their reaction to sup-

28 BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 pression comes from religious language. So I’m very sure that if heavily when Turkey and Greece fought over Cyprus. So the polit- there were more open societies in the Middle East, the extremists ical anger at your neighbor becomes persecution and discrimina- would be less violent. They could have very conservative views tion against your own citizens. The same thing happened to Turks about life—such as the Salafi groups for example, who are the on the other side of the Aegean. Turks in Greece have legitimate is- ultra-orthodox of Islam, if you will. I mean, they are not very sues about religious freedom. In Athens, mosques are not allowed, modern in the way they see the world, but when you look at but Turks want to have a mosque in Athens. The problem is not how some of them become violent, you see that they go through the Greek Orthodox Church as a theology, but Greek nationalism, a context of persecution. Therefore, more religious freedom will which fears that Turks will come as imperialists again. We think we help us against the problem of extremism as well. liberated them, but they think we’re imperialists. That’s a different world of history. So nationalism plays a role. DANIEL PHILPOTT: Yes. One might ask whether the threats to religious freedom come as much from a kind of secularist In Malaysia, there are great problems about conversion from agenda, like the Kemalist nationalist agenda in Turkey, as it does Islam to Christianity. The problem is how to keep the Malay from Islamism. Mustafa, you pointed that out in your book. nation intact, because Malays are, by definition, Muslim. It’s an ethnic group, actually. So in that sense, religiously grounded na- MUSTAFA AKYOL: Violations of religious freedom in the tionalism creates a major obstacle as well. Middle East can come from the persecution of the heretics. There are a lot of people who think that heresy should not be allowed DANIEL PHILPOTT: You talked about a kind of European- and bad ideas should be suppressed. They think you should pun- based secularism. That brings us back to Europe. Sofia, you keep ish the heretics. So that is one problem. That’s why, when you go talking about consensus and civil society and governments work- to a Shi’a majority country, you see Sunnis not fully expressing ing together. It sounds like everybody in Europe kind of agrees on themselves. When you go to Saudi Arabia, the Shi’a people are this issue. And yet just yesterday I was reading Peter Berger’s new really seen as an enemy within, and they have a lot of problems. book with Effie Fokas and Grace Davie called Religious America, Secular Europe?, which makes the comparison between Europe In Turkey, the violations of religious freedom came from our secu- and America. But one of the things that it says in the first chap- lar establishment, which was upheld by the generals and was seen ter is that the data are really showing Europe to be exceptional as the way to progress. French-style secularism is a problem. The for being more a secular place, whereas the rest of the world is problem is also nationalism. Turkey’s Greek minorities suffered more religious. This data reflects Central and Western Europe in particular. But nevertheless, one might wonder whether that would bring about some more skepticism or conflict. Are there people in Europe who are saying, “Why are we bringing religion into foreign policy? Wasn’t the world better and safer back when we were secular?”

SOFIA LEMMETYINEN: I would add that we always add the word “belief” to freedom of religion or belief. This is a term that we use consistently within EU and policy circles. It’s very im- portant that when we approach this issue—and it was also men- tioned in the opening session—we deal with it in a very broad and inclusive way: freedom of thought, conscience, religion, or belief. I think that’s important. That means that it’s not only about including religion in foreign policy. It’s about understand- ing the role of religion or other belief systems and their impact on human behavior, and including that in our analysis of our foreign policy and our external action. And, wearing my hat as a development cooperation practitioner, it’s about understand- ing what we can do to promote environments that are condu- Sofia Lemmetyinen cive to freedom of religion or belief, and seeing where freedom

BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 29 of religion or belief goes hand in hand with other interrelated who are being attacked and so forth? Is something more direct rights such as freedom of expression and freedom of association. and forceful needed? I think this is key. SOFIA LEMMETYINEN: I think you need both. You need In his articles, Peter Berger refers to building or enabling these to have a horizontal policy where freedom of religion or belief secular spaces. Along with pluralism in society, we also need in- is integrated, but you also need specific action and a systematic stitutions, which underpin the democratic culture. What type approach. I think these EU guidelines should not be underesti- of institutions do we need? We need to have an independent mated. They have been discussed between the then-27 EU mem- judiciary. We need to have media that follow ethical codes and ber states. In other words, that discussion was allowed in the also give access to minority groups in society. We need to take Council of the European Union, and the European Commission into consideration education, school materials, and so on. I was on board as well. We are committed to this. The document think from that point of view, the EU represents an approach to was adopted by the EU foreign ministers. I think that really gives freedom of religion or belief that is embedded within promot- the impression that this is an important issue. Of course, we also ing human rights and democracy. This is the very nature of the then need institutional setup on the EU side. We need people instrument that we work with. who work on these issues specifically. I’m glad to say that some of us are doing that. But indeed, we work in a broader horizontal DANIEL PHILPOTT: Yes. Is there any danger at all that re- scheme. ligious freedom may be too watered down in that kind of ap- proach? I mean, you’re talking about development policies, long- DANIEL PHILPOTT: It’s interesting that you talked about term policies, and consensual approaches to religion and belief. how this is incorporated into policy institutions. You know, What do you say to the Christians and Yazidis in Syria and Iraq America had one model coming out of the International Reli-

Panelists converse with audience members

30 BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 gious Freedom Act, or IRFA. We’ve got the office in the State case that over time, China’s enterprise will be undermined if it Department and then the independent watchdog speaking represses religion. Religious freedom is related to free exchange, truth to power, as Allen said. Allen, as the European countries travel, and so forth. We know that religion is booming in China, and Canada are developing religious freedom policy, do you and there are Chinese Christian business leaders who are given think the American model should be replicated? Or do you privileges. But here’s one statistic from the World Economic Fo- think there are lessons learned? What is the best way to incor- rum’s Global Competitive Report: There’s a strong positive re- porate religious freedom policy into a bureaucracy or into the lationship between religious freedom and 10 of the 12 pillars structure of a government? of global competitiveness. Ten of the 12 measures are strongly correlated with societies that broadly protect religious freedom. ALLEN HERTZKE: I think it is very valuable that there are That’s the language of statecraft. We ought to be able to make multiple approaches to using foreign policy tools to promote that case, it seems to me. religious freedom. It seems to me that it’s a good thing to have many different voices and different institutions make the case for DANIEL PHILPOTT: Fabio’s question suggests that perhaps how it’s beneficial for societies to defend broad religious freedom. it is time to open up the conversation to the audience. This is a policy dialogue, after all. I think it was a problem early on when the United States was kind ELIZABETA KITANOVIC:KITANOVIC: of alone, when it was perceived as “If we understand the Qur’an in its I’m Elizabeta Kitanovic from the an American initiative. The State historical context, it is speaking about Conference of European Church- Department produced its report. the communities that existed at the es in Brussels. I have a question The commission produced its cri- for Sofia. Do you have a list of time it was written. It doesn’t speak tique. It was seen as an American- countries of concern? If yes, how led initiative. Now, I think we’re in about Sikhs, who didn’t exist then, of does this list look? If not, why a healthier place with the Europe- course. But you can make inferences not? Then the second question is an Union, with Canada, and even in favor of them. You can see them for Mustafa. You have mentioned with countries like Brazil joining as People of the Book and as equal actually opening a mosque in Ath- the effort. As some of you may citizens. It is an evolution of the ens. How about reopening Halki know, Brian Grim has determined jurisprudential aspects of Islam.” Theological School in Turkey and that Brazil, according to Pew data, other schools? is a country with some of the Mustafa Akyol broadest religious freedom, both SOFIA LEMMETYINEN:LEMMETYINEN: at the societal and governmental Thank you, Elizabeth. The EU levels. Those countries are now starting to uphold their models Guidelines on Freedom of Religion or Belief from 2013 do not around the world. So it seems to me that it’s a very positive time in include a list of countries of particular concern as we know them the sense that we’re hearing this from a variety of sources. from the U.S. context. To my knowledge, there’s no aim of in- cluding such a list. But we do have EU delegations working on I want to say one other thing about how to recast this discussion. the ground. In their regular reporting of what we call “human Let’s put it in the language that policymakers and state actors really rights country strategies,” they analyze how the situation regard- understand. Do you want economic development? Do you want ing freedom of religion and belief is evolving in a given country. economic growth? Do you want to be competitive around the So this is how we in headquarters receive updated information world economically? Do you want to have a thriving economy? about the direction that a certain country is going. As such, there Then you have to protect religious freedom. You have to protect is currently no list of all the countries of concern. pluralism. Otherwise, you are going to undermine that economy. MUSTAFA AKYOL: Thank you for the question. It’s good that FABIO PETITO: What about China? you ask about Halki because I’m a passionate defender of reopening Halki. As I pointed out, the religious freedom problems on both ALLEN HERTZKE: That’s an interesting question. Brian Grim sides of the Aegean are sometimes similar. When the governments and his Religious Freedom and Business Foundation make the see their minorities as somewhat questionable, minorities want to

BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 31 redefine themselves in some different ways. Turks in Greece are the guidelines of 2013 in countries where the EU is active is not called Turks, but “Hellenes of the Muslim faith.” We wanted very, very welcomed. But it has to be said that there is a certain to call Kurds not Kurds, but “Turks who didn’t know that they’re conflict of values which affects all people operating in the name actually Turks and whom we have to transform.” There’s this kind of the European Union in third countries. There’s a principle of of nationalist madness going on in our geography. absolute equality across the board, which means that LGBT is- sues also have to be monitored in third countries. Turkey certainly has its hall of shame. Not reopening the Halki Seminary, which trains priests of the ecumenical patriarchate, be- I just want to sensitize our largely American audience to the slight longs in there. It was opened under the Ottoman Empire under ambivalence in the European commitment to religious freedom the auspices of the sultans. There was no problem with it in the and belief in the third countries in which it operates. At this mo- pluralistic millet system. ment we are negotiating a commercial agreement between the United States and the European Union, the Transatlantic Trade In 1971, our secular and nationalist generals decided that every- and Investment Partnership (TTIP). This is a corollary of that, thing should be unified under a state. We don’t like the Greeks because it’s a new and deepening relationship across the Atlantic. anyway because of Cyprus, and we wanted to teach them a les- I would sincerely hope that some of those values like freedom of son by closing Halki. The current government took some steps religion, which has been highlighted already, would be incorpo- toward liberating Turkey’s Christian minorities, but not enough rated in the TTIP negotiations, albeit indirectly. Thank you very to open Halki and not enough to help the Alevi minority. So much. Turkey has its own major problems for sure. DANIEL PHILPOTT: Let’s take another question. It is a conceptual problem that is found in other parts of the world. Turkey and Greece, unfortunately, have a principle of GUNNAR STALSETT: Thank you for this very enlightening and reciprocity, which says, “We won’t take a step unless you take a inspirational discussion. I’m the retired bishop of Oslo, Norway. It step.” It’s a lose-lose principle. I think we should have a win-win probably takes a bishop to raise this question. I missed in your pre- principle. Let’s take all the steps needed and then ask you to take sentation the elephant in the room—the churches and the church yours. But for some reason it doesn’t resonate with our politi- leadership in terms of religious freedom. You referred to civil society. cians and bureaucrats, and even with some parts of our popu- We’ve heard examples referring to Halki and the ecumenical patri- lace. arch and so on. But if we look at the history, not only in Europe but globally, religious leaders and religions present a stumbling block PATRICK DALY: I’m Father Patrick Daly, the general secretary in terms of majority and minority issues. Since we are focusing on of the Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Europe, I would like to hear your reflections on that. Community. In light of the discussion focusing on Europe, I will just share one or two observations. First of all, I think it’s true to You spoke positively and truthfully about the role of civil soci- say that internally the European Union, which was founded on ety. I consider religious institutions—churches, mosques, syna- profoundly Catholic and Christian principles some 70 years ago, gogues, and so on—as part of civil society. But they also repre- has come adrift of its Christian moorings. I think religion, as a sent something unique. Sometimes the assertion of a majority force in society, is a cause of some embarrassment and is gener- position of these churches stands against freedom of religion in ally overlooked in the policymaking of the European Union. I general terms. Would you elaborate on that, both from the Euro- think the value system now is that of the Enlightenment and pean Commission’s perspective and from the perspective of the the French Revolution rather than of Christian social teaching— Middle East? Thank you. although Christian and Catholic social teaching is not totally overlooked. SOFIA LEMMETYINEN: Just to clarify, when I referred to civil society, I also mentioned faith-based actors. I should have Now, it has to be said that the European External Action Ser- made it clear that indeed you have faith-based organizations that vice as an instrument of EU foreign policy is still very much in are more civil society-related, and then you have official religious its early days. It’s finding its feet. It’s a very weak instrument at institutions. To share with our American colleagues, the EU has the moment because, of course, it’s only just beginning. A com- in place a dialogue based on Article 17, which refers to the Trea- mitment to monitoring and surveying religious freedoms under ty of the Functioning of the European Union. Article 17 says

32 BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 Allen Hertzke talks with an audience member after the panel

that the EU as such does not have a preference for how church the challenging situation that Europe faces with migrants and or confessional organizations are registered in the EU member refugees coming to Europe. states, but that the EU institutions should engage in a regular and transparent dialogue with them. I would like to also touch upon the issue of religion being gener- ally overlooked. Besides this dialogue that has existed for quite This dialogue has existed since the 1990s, and there were ele- some time now, I would like to highlight some of the concrete ments of dialogue even before that. That dialogue will continue steps that the institutions are taking, including the European Ex- not only with religious institutions, but also with non-confes- ternal Action Service, which you rightly said is a new organism. sional philosophical associations. The EU gives the highest at- We have to see how it develops. It takes a bit of time. tention to this dialogue; the president of the European Com- mission, the president of the European Parliament, and the But it is very positive, I think, that representatives of EU mem- European Council are present at these meetings. ber states and the European Parliament can take part in a reg- ular training course for diplomats on freedom of religion or I would also like to add another element that came up recently. belief. These trainings are organized in cooperation with civil Last week in Brussels there was a first annual colloquium orga- society and academics. There’s also interesting work being done nized on anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, which included a very in other areas. Let me give one example of conflict resolution broad group of civil society organizations. Religious institutions and mediation. There’s work being undertaken now on how to were present as well. It’s just to show the strong commitment work with religious and faith-based leaders and communities that the vice president of the European Commission, Frans Tim- in mediation processes. I think we have lots of things to learn, mermans, has given to this topic and the importance of building for sure. It’s a challenging time, but I think we are on the right social cohesion in Europe—even more important today, given track.

BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 33 “Freedom of religion and belief is really about having an identity, having the right to hold thoughts and then being able to express them. It’s really more than just thoughts. It’s not just about rationality… Having that freedom to raise very important existential questions—who are we, where do we come from, where are we heading next—is what freedom of religion and belief is about.” Sofia Lemmetyinen

ALLEN HERTZKE: I want to respond to the broader point you for the future of Eastern Christianity. Of course, that depends on raised, which is a profound issue: majorities versus minorities the civil society and politics in those societies in general. and the way majority religious communities may want to use the state to harass competitors and so forth. Peter Berger described FAIZAN MUSTAFA: I am Professor Faizan Mustafa from In- how in the early American experience, Americans discovered dia. My question is for Mustafa Akyol. You made a reference that in order to have religious freedom for themselves they had to Abrahamic religions recognizing the preexisting religions. But to grant it to all others. In the globalized world of today, every not all preexisting religions are recognized. Islam does make a religion and every religious community is a persecuted minority distinction between People of the Book and others. They have somewhere. I think that growing awareness may lead majority been given some rights but not equal rights with Muslims. What communities in certain places to concede that they must grant about people who are not People of the Book? Islam and other religious rights to minorities in order for that reciprocity to take religions don’t recognize Hinduism, Buddhism, or Jainism. In place elsewhere. That, in a sense, is the article of peace for the any case, if you look at the Middle East today, Muslims don’t world. It’s for majorities to agree that we are not majorities every- even give People of the Book the rights that Prophet Muham- where. We will be persecuted somewhere. We must uphold the mad would have given to them. What about religions that preex- principle of religious freedom to make that not happen. isted Judaism and Christianity and their rights in Islam?

MUSTAFA AKYOL: In regard to the question about the role MUSTAFA AKYOL: Well, that’s a great question. That’s a ques- of church leaders in the Middle East, they sometimes have civil tion Muslims faced when they conquered India. Here was some- society roles. That’s very welcomed. The ecumenical patriarchate, thing called Hinduism—well, it was not called Hinduism, but for example, lately emerged as a great defender of environmental it’s a tradition in India. The Qur’an doesn’t speak about it. So issues. I think that’s a contribution to Turkey and abroad. In that how do we deal with it? The Qur’an speaks of the religions that sense, it is important and certainly a contribution. existed at that time in the vicinity of Arabia and Mecca. It speaks of Jews, Christians, and pagans. Pagans are not very welcomed, However, I think in Eastern Christianity, religion is not just civil but Jews and Christians are accepted and tolerated. It speaks of a society. It can be the political community as well. The head of a group called the Sabaeans, whose identity is still debated—they denomination is also the political leader of that denomination, or obviously were not Jews or Christians, but a different group. It he strongly associates with the political leader. They didn’t get the speaks favorably of Sabaeans, saying that those who believe in Caesar-God thing exactly right. I’m speaking from an American God and do right will actually go to heaven. It says the same Protestant perspective, if you will. That, of course, makes some thing for Jews and Christians, and that is troubling a lot of Mus- Christian leaders political actors in political dramas. Sometimes lims these days. They want to find a way to get rid of that because there are a lot of consequences of that. In Greece, for example, they want to make heaven exclusive to Muslims. the leader of Greek Cyprus was a bishop named Makarios. You wouldn’t expect that in America, but Makarios was the leader. When Islam expanded to India and there were Muslim empires Turks, who were angry at Greek nationalism, disliked him in- in India, the questions came: Who are these people? How do tensely. Unfortunately, that led to some violence against our we classify them? There was this helpful ijtihad, a religious jur- Greek minority and especially bishops in Turkey, which was an isprudential reasoning, saying that they are People of the Book, appalling thing. Rethinking this civil society, especially where it too, because they have a tradition and believe in God. Instead is fused with the political sphere, may be something that is good of defining them as pagan and therefore totally banning those

34 BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 religions, the Muslim empires accepted them as People of the ity that is easily compromised when there is a basket of foreign Book as well. Today, more progressive Muslims agree that People policy issues? Is religious freedom simply used as a pawn for eco- of the Book means somebody with a moral tradition. The most nomic gains? I think that is the way it is perceived by the Chi- progressive would say even that the atheists have some moral nese authorities. Every time the United States has a long list of traditions. It’s a hard sell for a lot of Muslims, but you can work things the U.S. officials are interested in talking with the Chinese out that concept. officials about, religious freedom is often the lowest in priority and may not even get on the table to discuss with the Chinese If we understand the Qur’an in its historical context, it is speak- officials. ing about the communities that existed at the time it was writ- ten. It doesn’t speak about Sikhs, who didn’t exist then, of course. Second, I want to ask this question to Mustafa: How is this policy But you can make inferences in favor of them. You can see them in the United States or the EU perceived in the Muslim world? as People of the Book and as equal citizens. It is an evolution of the jurisprudential aspects of Islam. ALLEN HERTZKE: Well, it’s a fabulous question. Of course, my colleague Tom Farr has written about the fact that religious AHMET KURU: I’m Ahmet Kuru from San Diego State Univer- freedom is not treated very seriously at the high levels of the State sity. I have a quick question for Allen. When the Religious Free- Department or at the White House. On the other hand, the dom Restoration Act was passed 20 years ago, there was almost State Department’s annual report on religious freedom is a re- unanimous support in the Congress. After two decades of polar- markable document when you think about the fact that it forces ization between the two parties, would you imagine today there our diplomats to get to know religious actors in every country on would be such a consensus on religious freedom? Thank you. earth and actually document what’s happening. It’s been getting better over time. That’s something David Saperstein once said. ALLEN HERTZKE: Thank you, Ahmet. This is something that You should not discount the significance of the annual report as I find personally very disturbing, as someone who writes both a source of empirical data on what’s happening in every country about global and American religious freedom issues. I was ac- on earth. tually doing research in Washington, D.C. when the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was being deliberated. I was interview- I do think it’s not a high enough priority in the American For- ing religious actors, the widest coalition I’ve ever seen before. eign Service. I think our Foreign Service officers need better The most liberal Jews were literally going office to office with training. They actually need a deeper comprehension of the fundamentalist homeschoolers to defend the Religious Freedom centrality of religious freedom to the kind of world we want Restoration Act. It was that broad of a coalition. to live in. I think that’s where the empirical and the economic analysis have to come to the fore. In other words, our State To me, it reflected the best of the pluralist tradition in America, Department officials, like foreign leaders, will not agree to where all can see their interest in a broad protection of religious promote religious freedom or defend it unless they see it as freedom—the kind of thing that Peter Berger was talking about. centrally focused on values that we hold dear. In fact, that’s I think it is unfortunate and actually dangerous for the United why I think we need to make the empirical case that religious States’ capability of promoting religious freedom abroad when freedom is linked with economic flourishing, stability, peace, there are those now in our academic community and political and so forth. community who see religious freedom as a cover for bigotry or parochialism. One of my hopes, one of my quests, is to help MUSTAFA AKYOL: How is American support for religious reconnect religious freedom to the grand liberal tradition in the freedom seen in the Muslim world? There are diverse views, but I United States and around the world. think there is a bias against it. It is being perceived and presented by some people as a cover for missionary activity. Missionary FENGGANG YANG: I’m Fenggang Yang, a professor at Pur- activity is a dirty term. They will come make all of us Christians due University. My question first goes to Allen. Talking about and then occupy our lands and suck our oil. There’s a sort of religious freedom as a foreign policy of the United States, how conspiratorial understanding of the thing. Yes, religious freedom important is this in the overall U.S. foreign policy? There are can help missionaries move forward in the Muslim world. But as economic, political, military, and other concerns when dealing a Muslim, am I horrified by that? No, because I think that they with other countries. Is religious freedom policy a low prior- have a right to do that.

BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 35 Michael Maibach and Bishop Gunnar Stalsett

Second, if Muslim societies face more missionaries, they will ation in Europe. Freedom of religion or belief was enshrined in face an intellectual challenge from a different religious tradition, the 1975 Helsinki Final Act. But then it was sort of operational- which is a good thing. They will be forced to engage missionaries ized and institutionalized in 1990 and has been operating under intellectually. I had this discussion with a conservative Islamic various guises ever since in important ways. I was wondering scholar who said, “Well, wait a minute. They have all these well whether someone could address that. Thank you. trained, language-skilled people coming in. We don’t know these things.” I said, “Okay, let’s start to learn.” I mean, the free market SOFIA LEMMETYINEN: I think you are more of an expert should force us to be more competitive. than me on that topic, to be honest. To be very clear on the EU’s standpoint on this, the EU guidelines from 2013 commit Of course, not everybody is convinced by this idea, but us to work with other regional organizations and to maintain a I think that’s how I would frame it. That’s why it should dialogue and exchange on these issues. Also, in the EU Action not be framed in a way that is focused only on that. Plan on Human Rights and Democracy from 2012 and the new That’s why I’m saying it should not look like a double action plan from 2015 to 2019, we again have a commitment standard. It should be concerned about Christian minori- to work with the OSCE and the Council of Europe, of course. ties, Christian missionaries, Muslims, and all of that. The This scene of different actors remains open. The EU has engaged principle is, I think, important. the League of Arabs States, the Organization of Islamic Coop- eration, and so on. It’s important that that dialogue is ongoing CATHY COSMAN: Hi, I’m Cathy Cosman from the United multilaterally and also at a regional level, of course. States Commission on International Religious Freedom. I want- ed to ask whether someone could speak to the very important, I would like to add to something that Allen said earlier. We pioneering work of the Organization on Security and Co-oper- should be better at stressing the kind of positive outcomes that

36 BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 freedom of religion and belief can give. That’s true. I would also DANIEL PHILPOTT: That gets down to the most fundamen- like to add that when we are part of the United Nations system tal core principle. Could each of the panelists give just a brief and states have signed and ratified international covenants and response? What would you see as the best argument for freedom important conventions on human rights, those states have then of religion? committed themselves to uphold these fundamental freedoms and human rights. It’s not only about an economic analysis of MUSTAFA AKYOL: Well, this is a subjective issue to some ex- what brings us furthest. We have legal obligations. I think it’s tent, because we are religious animals. It’s a part of who we are. important to remind states of that. That’s where the EU member Even if you deny tradition and religions, we create new ones. We states and the EU admit that they are not perfect, either. We have need to create deities. Chairman Mao becomes our god. So this things to do at home. is such a fundamental part of human nature. We value freedom of speech. We should value freedom of religion as well. Express- ALLEN HERTZKE: In fact, every state that signed these inter- ing ourselves is a part of our humanity. Having a higher goal and national covenants commits itself not only to upholding them belonging to a higher cause, I think, is a part of humanity. It is themselves, but also promoting them internationally. I think it’d politicized, yes, but what can you do about it? The healthy way be a wonderful thing if other countries might, in some ways, of being politicized would not be through oppression. critique what’s going on in the United States. Are you uphold- ing the International Covenant in terms of conscience rights, for SOFIA LEMMETYINEN: I’m very much on the same line example? as Mustafa here. Freedom of religion and belief is really about having an identity, having the right to hold thoughts and then I want to say one other thing. It’s being able to express them. It’s re- not well understood or appreciat- ally more than just thoughts. It’s not ed, but people who are involved in “Conscience has rights because it just about rationality. As we heard the legislative process for the In- has duties. At some fundamental from the first session as well, having ternational Religious Freedom Act level, religious freedom is the that freedom to raise very important actually cited the Helsinki experi- freedom for me to fulfill my existential questions—who are we, ence as central to why we should ultimate obligations or duties.” where do we come from, where are integrate religious freedom in we heading next—is what freedom our foreign policy affairs. Human of religion and belief is about. rights played an important role Allen Hertzke in the Helsinki process. It wasn’t ALLEN HERTZKE: Conscience the American First Amendment. has rights because it has duties. At It was actually international covenants and the Helsinki Ac- some fundamental level, religious freedom is the freedom for me cords that inspired some of the legislative drafters of IRFA. to fulfill my ultimate obligations or duties. In my sense, it’s tran- scendent. What is so fundamental to human identity is a sense DANIEL PHILPOTT: We have time for one more question. that we ought to do certain things. In some cases, we’re command- ed by God to do certain things. It’s striking to me how we actually HU YEPING: My name is Hu Yeping from the Center for the live in a historic moment. For millennia, philosophers and theolo- Study of Culture and Values at Catholic University and the gians have been making arguments about freedom of conscience, Council for Research in Values and Philosophy. Why do we talk about freedom of the soul. Right now, we are actually living in a about religious freedom? Why does religion need freedom? I time when vast empirical evidence and events on the ground are think religion is politicized. If you look at Ancient Greece, when corroborating the timeless principle that the protection of free- the citizens gathered together in the polis, the first one was the dom of conscience, belief, and religion is central to the crucible of oracle. Religion is not separate. Religion is a way of life. We talk the twenty-first century: living with our differences in a shrinking about the historical idea of freedom of religion. But in Chinese world. That’s a pretty strong case for religious freedom. studies, there was no such term for religion or philosophy until the nineteenth century, when it was translated from Japanese. DANIEL PHILPOTT: Let’s thank these wonderful panelists for Religion was always a part of everyday life and practice. So why their great insights. That was a very lively discussion. [Applause] do we talk about religious freedom?

BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 37 Keynote Conversation: Overcoming Differences Between Western Democracies in Developing a Common Religious Freedom Policy

TIMOTHY SAMUEL SHAH: I’m delighted to be moderating We heard a case that has to do with the effectiveness of freedom this panel conversation on “Overcoming Differences Between of religion and conscience in dampening, resisting, or counter- Western Democracies in Developing a Common Religious Free- ing extremism in general, and violent extremism in particular. dom Policy.” It’s just magnificent to see so many people here representing a wide variety of organizations and academic in- By the way, given that this is a Jesuit university and that we in stitutions from all over the world. This is truly an extraordinary Washington just hosted Pope Francis, a Jesuit pope, a couple of conversation, and we’re delighted here at the Religious Freedom weeks ago, I’ll mention that when he was in the United States, Project at Georgetown to be hosting so many friends and col- Pope Francis made another kind of argument for religious free- leagues from around the world. dom in his speech before the United Nations. He made what you might call a developmental argument for religious freedom, I’m Timothy Shah, associate director of the Religious Freedom Project in which he argued that religious freedom or spiritual freedom is here at the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs at crucial for the multi-dimensional and sustainable development Georgetown University. Thus far, we have heard a compelling case for of the human person. Pope Francis said, “Government lead- religious freedom and freedom of conscience, as well as for the value ers must do everything possible to ensure that all can have the of promoting religious freedom and freedom of conscience in foreign minimum spiritual and material means needed to live in dignity policy. This case has several parts, which we’ve heard in the course of and to create and support a family, which is the primary cata- the day. Peter Berger, Os Guinness, and Walter Mead made a compel- lyst for any social development… This absolute minimum has ling case that religious freedom provides a crucial context in which three names: lodging, labor, and land; and one spiritual name: pluralism can flourish. So that’s one part of the case we’ve heard so far. spiritual freedom, which includes religious freedom, the right to education, and all other civil rights.” So we heard a compelling But we’ve also heard a second argument, particularly in the last case for religious freedom from our own sociological pope, Peter panel moderated by my friend and colleague, Daniel Philpott. Berger, and also from Pope Francis. [Laughter]

38 BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 There are many different kinds of arguments for this, but now we professor at the Catholic University of Leuven. He received his need to ask ourselves: How do we get down to brass tacks? How Ph.D. in Law from the University of Sienna. do we practically develop a common, or at least coordinated, Western policy for advancing of the cause of religious freedom To Pasquale’s left is Ahmet Kuru of San Diego State University. in the face of many obstacles? Some of the obstacles are the dif- Ahmet Kuru is an associate professor in the Department of Po- ferences between Western governments and societies themselves litical Science at San Diego State. He’s also the director of the in terms of their understanding of religious freedom, freedom of Center for Islamic and Arabic Studies. His research specializes conscience, and freedom of thought. in comparative politics, religion and politics, and Islamic and Middle Eastern studies. He is the author of multiple essays and Fortunately, to address this difficult question of developing a books concerning policy and religion, including Secularism and common, coordinated policy, we have four outstanding experts State Policies towards Religion: The United States, France and Tur- and practitioners who represent different parts of the Western key (2009)—a book that I force my students to read, I might world. They have enormous experience on these issues. I’m ab- add, because it’s so outstanding. [Laughter] It won the Distin- solutely delighted by the composition of this panel. I’m going to guished Book Award from the Society for the Scientific Study of quickly introduce the members of the panel, and then I’m going Religion in 2011. to ask a series of questions that will get at this issue of developing a common policy on religious freedom. AHMET KURU: And you need to force them to read it? [Laughter] Thomas Farr is to my far left. He is the director of the Religious Freedom Project at the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and TIMOTHY SAMUEL SHAH: I need to force them. It’s one World Affairs. He is an associate professor of the practice of respect in which consciences need to be forced, I think. In ad- religion and world affairs at Georgetown’s Edmund Walsh dition, Ahmet was the co-editor, along with Alfred Stepan, of School of Foreign Service, a former American diplomat, and a Democracy, Islam, and Secularism in Turkey (2012). leading authority on international religious freedom. Tom has published widely, including a major 2008 article in Foreign Af- And then we have Ambassador Anne Leahy of McGill Univer- fairs, “Diplomacy in an Age of Faith,” and a comprehensive sity. Ambassador Leahy is a former Canadian diplomat, and she monograph on the importance of advancing religious freedom is currently an adjunct professor in McGill University’s Catholic for national security, World of Faith and Freedom: Why Inter- Studies Department. She provides regular media commentary national Religious Liberty is Vital to American National Secu- on domestic and foreign policy issues concerning secularism and rity. He came to the State Department as a diplomat after a religion. In her vast career—she has 40 years of experience in distinguished career in the U.S. Army. It’s important to note foreign diplomacy—she held ambassadorships to the Holy See, for the purposes of this panel that Tom served as the very first Cameroon, Chad, Central African Republic, Poland, Russia, Ar- director of the State Department’s Office of International Re- menia, Belarus, and the Great Lakes region of Africa. ligious Freedom from 1999 to 2003. In that capacity, he trav- eled widely to promote religious liberty and engaged religious To kick off our conversation, it’s useful to begin with the United communities, government officials, and the victims of religious States when thinking about developing a common, coordinated persecution. Tom was, therefore, a primary driver of American religious freedom policy. As Os Guinness noted very eloquently religious freedom policy. this morning, the United States has probably the longest run- ning experiment with what one might call “robust religious free- I’m also delighted that we have Pasquale Annicchino to my dom” among the Western democracies, which goes back to the immediate left. Pasquale is one of the world’s most outstanding eighteenth century. Of course, that experiment has encountered experts and scholars on Western religious freedom policy. He’s many problems along the way. written a book in Italian on the subject and numerous articles analyzing the details of international religious freedom policies But as many of us must know, the United States also has had by of Western governments. He’s a research fellow at the Robert far the oldest international religious freedom policy dating back Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies and a member of the to 1998. I want to pose this question to Tom initially, and then European University Institute’s Ethics Committee. He’s been ask others to chime in. Tom, what lessons from this policy can an adjunct professor of law at BYU Law School, and a visiting be drawn for other Western democracies as they develop their

BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 39 religious freedom policies? What aspects of U.S. policy in this Peter was trying to make this distinction earlier today when he area should be replicated and what aspects should perhaps not talked about same-sex marriage. He said that there are secular be replicated? ways to talk about that issue. That’s certainly true. But I was wondering if he was having a Rawlsian moment there in saying THOMAS FARR: We have had a policy for 17 years across that you have to leave aside any religious argument. I think you three administrations and both political parties in the United have to be smart about your religious arguments, but I don’t States. It is very dif- think it is right to say ficult to argue that that you just have to during those 17 years “Not all European institutions are filled with take a religious argu- religious freedom ment and translate it has improved any- assertive secularists or have double standards when into a secular argu- where in the world. it comes to Islam. But at least in the United States ment. I don’t think That doesn’t mean there is a passive secularism that tries to promote Peter was talking the United States is a more mutual understanding between Islam and about a constitution- responsible for this Western values and norms.” al requirement. He problem. It does was talking about a mean it’s hard to Ahmet Kuru prudential reason for argue that we have changing your argu- been successful in ment. You may want our statutory respon- to try to persuade sibility of advancing religious freedom and reducing persecution somebody who doesn’t buy your premises. So in that sense, you around the world. So the U.S. religious freedom establishment, do want to change your arguments into ones that can be heard our foreign policy establishment, and our political leadership and understood. need to accept some of these recommendations as well. But the right to bring your religion qua religion into the public First, make it clear that you’re advocating for religious freedom square is very important to religious liberty. If you’re going to and not simply opposing religious persecution. These activities promote religious liberty, you’ve got to figure out a way to en- are two sides of the same coin, but they’re not the same thing. tice those religious elements that are in a society into the public I would argue that opposing religious persecution, which is a square in a way that is legitimate and consonant with democratic noble and a good thing to do, has generally yielded reports, lists, values. If you don’t do that, you’re going to fail in promoting and speeches, but not policies that have improved things. religious freedom, and you’re going to fail in reducing religious persecution. We have not done that well in the United States, So what’s the answer? We must promote religious freedom as but I would certainly recommend it to all of our European col- the antidote to religious persecution, and that’s a very hard thing leagues, our Brazilian colleagues, and anybody who wants to ad- to do. You’ve got to begin by being clear about what you think vance religious freedom. religious freedom is. Here we have a problem. What is religious freedom? Is it just the right not to be tortured? Surely it’s more So don’t just curse the darkness of religious persecution. Actually than that. Is it simply the right to worship? Both Os Guinness advance religious freedom. It’s very hard to do, but it’s the only and Peter Berger mentioned that in the United States today, the way to make this work. “right to worship” is becoming a synonym for religious freedom. Surely it means the right to worship, but it must mean more Second, make it abundantly clear that you are advocating reli- than that. If so, what? We often talk about “religion in the public gious freedom and opposing religious persecution for everyone, square.” What does that mean? It doesn’t mean only the right to not just for your own group. Now this may seem obvious to wear religious garb. It means the right to be involved in the pub- many, but it is something that I think all religious groups strug- lic life of your country if you live in a democracy. Just because gle with to one degree or another. We all support advancing reli- you’re a religious citizen that has religious views doesn’t mean gious freedom for minorities, of course, because they’re the ones you have to leave them out of your public and civic activities. that are in the eye of the storm. But we also want to defend the religious freedom of the majority. People who belong to the ma-

40 BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 Timothy Shah and Pasquale Annicchino jority community—whether they’re Christians in the United States mats are not attending Baptist prayer meetings. [Laughter] They’re or Muslims in Turkey or anywhere else—have an equal right to be usually fairly secular. I think this is true in all of the Western de- involved in the public life of their nation as citizens. Everybody has mocracies, including the United States. The State Department is a a right to be involved on the basis of his or her religious beliefs. fairly secular institution. It always has been.

But we also have to make it clear that religious freedom imposes So what? If they view the religious freedom office and the religious limits. This came up in Mustafa’s comments. A lot of people ask, freedom ambassador and the people who work there as something “Well, if you have religious freedom in Saudi Arabia, does that that’s been imposed on them by religious groups from the outside, mean that the majority Wahhabis get to impose any rule they it will not work. The Office of International Religious Freedom has please? According to Wahhabis, for example, women can’t drive to draw on some of the arguments made by Allen Hertzke and oth- cars, vote, or move out of the country if they choose to.” No. Reli- ers today. It has to be seen as something fundamental to the interest gious freedom does not mean I get to do whatever I say my religion of the country or to the EU. Otherwise, it won’t work. obligates me to do. Finally, give authority and resources to the people who are in Properly understood, religious freedom imposes its own limits, charge. Don’t stick them in an office somewhere and tell them to go the most important being full equality under the law. This is the out and make speeches and meet with religious people. That may limit on everyone’s religious freedom: You have the same right to be fun. It’s not a worthless thing to do, but it is not advancing inter- religious freedom that I do, even though we follow two different national religious freedom. So give them authority and resources. religions. TIMOTHY SAMUEL SHAH: Thank you, Tom. The United Third, integrate religious freedom into the fairly secular diplomatic States is an example of some good ways and perhaps also some service of Western democracies. Let’s face it: Most Western diplo- not-so-good ways to promote religious freedom. Pasquale, can I

BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 41 turn to you? You studied the different religious freedom policies of Western countries.

PASQUALE ANNICCHINO: First of all, thank you very much for inviting me to be on this panel. I just want to elabo- rate on a couple of the points that Tom made. I agree with him on the main distinction between promoting religious freedom and avoiding religious persecution. This distinction should be made clear from the beginning. The problem I have with it is that sometimes we don’t even agree on the need to avoid reli- gious persecution. For our own Western states, the classic case will be Saudi Arabia. This is not only the case with the United States, but with Europe as well. For instance, the only foreign minister that stood up against some policies in Saudi Arabia was the Swedish minister of foreign affairs, and very few European prime ministers or colleagues supported her when she criticized those policies.

If we pretend to defend fundamental rights and religious free- dom and then we remain silent in those moments, I think that we run into serious problem of incoherence. Therefore, I think that before we engage in the issue of promoting religious free- Timothy Shah dom, we have to solve this issue. This is still something that we cannot take for granted in the Western world. We need to have a cause we don’t have that kind of protection for religious free- serious conversation on this issue of terminology. In the United dom for a corporate entity. We need to have a conversation on Kingdom they would say that British and Americans are divided the boundaries of religious freedom and what religious freedom by language, even though they more or less agree on the issue means for us. of religious freedom. If you look at official documents, you will find it’s very tricky and hard to translate religious freedom, re- One last point is that the European Union agrees that religious ligious liberty, freedom of conscience, and freedom of religion freedom is something that you do publicly. I think this is very and belief from a legal point of view. Brits and Americans do not important. We have had important cases at the European Court simply have different versions of the same content. Behind this of Justice on asylum seekers who fled their home countries be- terminology there are different normative worlds that sometimes cause of religious persecution. The Court of Justice of the Euro- conflict. pean Union clearly said that religious freedom is not something that you can do only in your house privately. Religious freedom I agree with Tom that even we in the Western world need to have is something you need to be able to do publicly. Praying at home a serious conversation about this. For instance, I found out that and practicing your religious rites at home is not enough. many Catholic scholars, especially those in the United States, would prefer to use the terminology of religious liberty instead We can have a conversation on this between the two shores of of freedom of conscience. There is a very deep and important the Atlantic. There are things that divide us, like the Transat- reason for this. Religious liberty comes from the Latin phrase lantic Trade and Investment Partnership that was mentioned libertas ecclesiae, which is the freedom of the Church that comes this morning. But we also have things that unite us. Therefore, before the freedom of the individual. Individual freedom can we should try to work on the things that unite us. Hopefully, only be within the freedom of the Church. we can try to engage other players, because it won’t be enough to have only Western countries working on religious freedom. Furthermore, if we look at the internal debates in the United Many people all over the world will not be convinced if only the States—at a case like Hobby Lobby—there have been legal terms United States and the EU are working on this. that are hard to understand within the European legal order, be-

42 BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 TIMOTHY SAMUEL SHAH: Thank you, Pasquale. I want to two hours. I think we should concentrate more on action than turn to Anne. Canada is such an interesting case. It’s one of the on preaching. few countries that actually has, in a sense, replicated some as- pects of American policy by formally having an Office of Inter- In terms of the Office of Religious Freedom, it was primarily a national Religious Freedom, including an ambassador for inter- political act in Canada’s case. It came from the realization that national religious freedom. It is now filled by Andrew Bennett, there was a lot of persecution of Christians. All those statistics who’s been to Georgetown on several occasions. Anne, do you came out in 2010, 2011, and 2012, either from the Organiza- have comments? Given your experience in Canada, is it a good tion for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) or from thing that Canada has repli- others like Pew, which showed cated this aspect of American that the most persecuted reli- international religious free- “There is a radical religious, theological gion was in fact Christianity. dom policy? truth claim at the root of American That led, of course, to some democracy: All men are created equal. pressure to react. ANNE LEAHY: I’m afraid I’ll be a little dissonant. I come That is a religious claim. That is not a The office was announced in from Quebec. We’re a distinct secular claim. It has to do with the 2011 or 2012. The ambas- society, anyway. [Laughter] nature of God and the nature of what a sador was named just a year- I’ll speak in a personal capac- human being is.” and-a-half ago. Since the writ ity. I no longer have links to of the federal elections was the foreign affairs of Canada. Thomas Farr dropped—we have an elec- I was in Moscow for the first tion on October 19—there’s time in 1980, during the last been nothing but silence out real blast of the Cold War. I was the officer responsible for moni- of the Canadian Office of Religious Freedom. I don’t think that’s toring human rights and my job description included religious because there’s nothing to talk about. But on the other hand, I freedom, since some of the people we monitored were, of course, wonder how many people noticed. people who were persecuted for their religious beliefs. TIMOTHY SAMUEL SHAH: Great. Thank you, Ambassador As I followed the genesis of the Office of Religious Freedom in Leahy. Let me turn now to Ahmet Kuru. We are, in a sense, Canada in the first year-and-a-half, and analyzed the impact of getting more deeply into the obstacles to having a coordinated the debate about the place of religion in the public square in Western religious freedom policy, and this is really an area in Quebec and Canada, a few things came to my mind. We are which Professor Kuru has worked quite a bit. I’d like to ask you, hypocritical. We should preach by example. I’m not sure we Ahmet, to talk about the domestic political religious experiences need an Office of Religious Freedom because it is so open to and the different trajectories of the different Western democra- being manipulated in terms of its interpretation. The permanent cies with respect to issues of religion and state, their distinctive secretary of the British Civil Service said that human rights are religious constituencies, and their distinctive domestic dilem- now at the bottom of the priorities of the British Foreign Office. mas dealing with religion. How did these kinds of things affect They’re all about trade. If religious rights are subject to that, the their international perspectives and their international religious EU will draw the appropriate conclusions. So I think we do need freedom promotion? Of course, one thinks of France as having to preach by example. a relatively statist and explicitly secularist approach to religion, which you’ve written about. One thinks of the United States, In terms of Canada, we like to think that we are a model in terms which practices a very different sort of relationship between re- of reasonable accommodation of various communities, whether ligion and state. How do these very different histories and dif- they’re the First Nations, the French, the English, or newly ar- ferent trajectories affect the institution of international religious rived immigrants. We are a model because people look at this freedom policy? from the outside and they see that it can work. We’re far from perfect, but we can make it work. This experience impresses AHMET KURU: Thanks, Tim. I would like to start by quoting more than another series of annual reports. It’s far better than one of my favorite philosophers, Nasreddin Hodja of eleventh- putting out a tweet every 30 minutes and a press release every century Anatolia. Hodja was a historical figure who wore differ-

BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 43 ent hats. Sometimes he was the imam. Sometimes he was the Muslim-majority countries, 23 are secular states. That was a ma- qadi. Sometimes he was a community leader. When he was a jor breakthrough that most scholars of Islam didn’t know about. qadi, a judge, two persons came accusing each other. He listened to the first one and said, “You are right.” When he listened to the The second reason I want to make a case for the shift toward second one, he turned to him and said, “You are right.” His wife greater attention to religion in U.S. policy has to do with the was not impressed. She was outraged and said, “Hodja, how can origin of the shift. It didn’t begin as a U.S. imperialistic foreign two opposite arguments both be right?” He listened to her and policy agenda. As far as I know, it started in Oregon. A Native said, “You are right, too.” [Laughter] I think we need such level American and his white friend went to a religious ceremony and of toleration and understanding. When it comes to the debate used peyote, a hallucinogenic, but they happened to be work- about whether the U.S. religious freedom reports are problem- ing for a drug rehabilitation center. They were fired. They took atic or beneficial, I think both sides have good points. the issue to court, saying that they used the drug for religious purposes. It became a huge debate and we ended up with the But I think that a cost-benefit analysis can be very helpful. There Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The origin is a very sincere is an enormous scholarly dataset. In my book I prepared an in- debate about the importance of religious freedom, even if you dex of state and religion relations of various countries, and my are working in a drug rehabilitation center. The funny thing is main data source was the religious freedom reports of the United that the friend of the Native American said that he was white, States Commission on International Religious Freedom. For but he converted to the Native American religion, and that’s why example, people have been discussing Islam and the state for a he was using the drug. very long time. The popular idea is that the two are merged. In most Muslim countries, there are Islamic states. But it was the As we deconstruct the idea of Islam and the state, we should also commission’s report that first gave us the data that out of 49 deconstruct the term Western secularism, because there are mul-

Thomas Farr

44 BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 tiple de jure and de facto models of state-religion interactions phasized inclusion and understanding, became a basis for the in the so-called “Western world.” In my work I try to define two parties to agree with each other. I think it’s very healthy for two types of secularism. One is the assertive secularism, which democracy and for a more inclusionary understanding of state- has been dominant not only in France but also in Mexico and religion relations. Turkey, in which the state is supposed to play an assertive role to eliminate religion from the public square. TIMOTHY SAMUEL SHAH: Thank you. Could you just talk a little bit about how differences between passive and assertive The type of secularism that has been dominant in the United secularism affect the implementation of international religious States, as well as in countries like India and the Netherlands, is freedom policy? Do they have an effect on the way these coun- passive secularism. The state is supposed to play a passive role tries look at the rest of world and engage the issue of religious by tolerating religious or secular discourses if they appear in the freedom? public sphere. When the U.S. religious freedom reports started to be issued, there was a series of debates in Turkey about passive AHMET KURU: First of all, in order to teach a lesson to oth- versus assertive secularism. At that time, a major debate was on er countries, you should solve the problem at home. So in the the issue of the headscarf. It was as big of an issue as abortion in United States, for example, Muslims have the freedom to open the United States. For Turks, there were two sources of Western mosques and wear headscarves. There are also many gestures. For opinion on this issue. One was the European Court of Human example, on each Muslim holiday, the U.S. Postal Service issues Rights, which upheld Turkey’s decision to ban the headscarf in an Eid stamp with Arabic calligraphy as a gesture. Recently a universities, saying that an adult Muslim female’s headscarf con- Muslim imam preached the opening prayer in the U.S. Con- stituted peer pressure and a threat to Turkish democracy. There- gress. Presidents since Clinton celebrate Muslim holidays, and fore, the state’s prohibition of headscarves was perfectly compat- Obama had an iftar dinner. ible and even a necessity to protect democracy. Given the fact that about two-thirds of women in Turkey are wearing some sort We do not see these kinds of gestures in France. Therefore, if of headscarf, that was extremely discriminatory. That was really France had such a religious freedom office, 49 Muslim-majority disappointing because it was followed by another decision with countries would not even read the reports. They would say, “You the same court that upheld crucifixes in Italian classrooms. The didn’t solve your problems at home. How can you teach us?” court ruled that the crucifixes did not constitute peer pressure In the American case, I think there’s a significant difference be- whatsoever. tween passive and assertive secularism. Since passive secularism is not imposing itself as a comprehensive doctrine, it gives more The Turks were shocked. But at the same time, the U.S. reli- space for both majorities and minorities. gious freedom reports emphasized that the headscarf ban was a restriction of the right to education and a restriction of religious TIMOTHY SAMUEL SHAH: Great. Thank you very much. freedom. Not all European institutions are filled with assertive This takes us back, Ambassador Leahy, to the powerful point secularists or have double standards when it comes to Islam. But you were making about the importance of setting an example. at least in the United States there is a passive secularism that tries So I want to turn to you. We’ve dwelled quite a bit on problems to promote a more mutual understanding between Islam and and obstacles. Given your long experience, Ambassador Leahy, Western values and norms. I’d like you to address the question: How can we, as Western democracies, better pursue global religious freedom in concert? One more thing I would like to emphasize is that assertive secular- What can Western governments practically do despite the differ- ism in France has become a source of coalition building between ences, obstacles, challenges, and areas where, of course, they will the left-wing secularists and right-wing anti-immigrants—you never be perfect in the way they implement religious freedom at may call the latter Islamophobes or the far right. Interestingly, home? What can they do better in terms of promoting interna- these two polar opposites, who fought against each other for over tional religious freedom together? a century, came together when it came to Islam on the particular issue of the headscarf. Left-wing secularists and right-wing anti- ANNE LEAHY: Well, I think we should go back to really pro- immigrants agreed on the ban. In the United States, we have moting, defending, and funding the effort to promote human seen the opposite: The GOP and Democrats came together on rights in general. That includes the right to profess publicly one’s the agenda of religious freedom. A passive secularism, which em- belief. It includes the right to freedom of expression. Implicitly

BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 45 we’ve talked about international religious freedom in the world, TIMOTHY SAMUEL SHAH: Speaking of multilateral orga- but there are two levels, really. There’s always a bilateral relation- nizations, I want to ask you, Pasquale, about the relative merits ship, like between Canada and the United States or the EU. of pursuing religious freedom through the policies of individual Then there is the conversation that takes place in international governments, perhaps including alliances between governments, and multinational forums, not only at the OSCE and the UN, versus incorporating religious freedom into the foreign polices but also at the Organization of Islamic States and at the African of bodies like the European Union, the United Nations, and Union. We should not forget that they also have debates. They the African Union. What are the merits of these different ap- also have charters and contribute to this discussion. We should proaches? encourage them and perhaps give them more visibility when we look at the foreign policies of each of our countries working to- PASQUALE ANNICCHINO: Well, this is an old controversy gether in these international forums. It may sound very bureau- in the sense that even if you look at the records when IRFA was cratic, but these resolutions and charters that get debated form approved in 1998, there was this classic debate on multilateral the basis for mandates that are given to observers or rapporteurs. versus unilateral approaches. On this very specific issue, I would side with Jeremy Gunn, who is not someone who is suspected Members of civil society—women’s groups, faith-based groups, to be a hard Republican. Jeremy Gunn wrote an article one year and humanitarian organizations—all have something to do with after IRFA was approved. He argued that we can combine both faith-based rights or situations. For these organizations, these multilateralism and unilateralism for a better promotion of free- agreements are instruments that can help them in their work, dom of religion or belief, and that these are complementary ap- particularly when they encounter difficulties. There are fascinat- proaches. ing debates right now in the UN. There is one about whether or not religion is worthy of being defended; one on whether blas- From my general perspective, the more states that are involved, phemy laws to protect religion trump protection of individual the better. But this is not always obvious and easy. Look at the rights; and one on the dichotomy between freedom of expression UN. There is a special rapporteur who does a great job on map- and protection of one’s belief. ping, reporting, and promoting religious freedom. However, when you look at the UN Human Rights Council, it’s kind of As an example of dealing with conflicting principles, the Quebec hard to develop a shared line on the protection of religious free- government amended its Charter of Rights and Freedoms to put dom. The controversies raised in this council are partly due to equality of men and women above every other right. Islam con- the policy of Western countries. As we know, Saudi Arabia got veys for some people the idea that a woman wearing the niqab is a seat in the UN Human Rights Council because it made a deal submissive to a man, and she must always walk behind her hus- with the United Kingdom. So it’s a very complex bargain. band. These cultural and religious characteristics of Islam in our own communities are real issues that we should pay a lot more Again, there is the issue that the ambassador raised before: Per- attention to in discussing freedom of religion at the multilateral haps we in the West are not preaching by example. This is very level. important if we want to be credible actors when we promote and protect freedom of religion or belief, or even when we tell other In terms of bilateral relationships, the EU talks about the funds it countries that they should not persecute people because of what has available to invest with its partners in all sorts of society-build- they believe or because they changed their religion. ing projects. Often there is a religious dimension. It’s often one of several dimensions, like empowering youth or women’s groups, There is also another thing that I want to stress, which affects building legal institutions, and so on. Practitioners of our develop- both internal politics and multilateral organizations. I very much ment assistance cooperation—and I was the Canadian delegate to respect what the United States has done for the promotion and the Development Assistance Committee at the Organization for protection of the freedom of religion or belief, but the situation Economic Co-operation and Development in the mid-1980s— from 1998 to today has deeply changed. I mean, in 1998 we had have known this for decades, so this is nothing new. But we didn’t an act approved by both parties unanimously. I do not believe put big, bold religious labels on projects. If we un-bolded them, that today IRFA would have been approved with unanimity in we would probably achieve the same results. In a nutshell, I’d like the U.S. Congress, because religion and religious freedom have to know what we are trying to achieve with an international reli- become highly partisan issues in the United States. It is often as- gious freedom policy, and whether or not we achieved it. sociated only with one political party, and there is no common

46 BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 “It will be quite difficult for the United States to lead a global coalition for freedom of religion or belief, because it’s hard to find a shared internal agreement, even within the country. If we are not able to find a common position within the United States, how can we assume that other partners in the world can have a common understanding of freedom of religion or belief?” Pasquale Annicchino

denominator. It will be quite difficult for the United States to Earlier in this discussion, Pasquale mentioned Saudi Arabia’s po- lead a global coalition for freedom of religion or belief, because sition on the UN Human Rights Council. If you read the U.S. it’s hard to find a shared internal agreement, even within the International Religious Freedom Report on Saudi Arabia, it hits country. If we are not able to find a common position within hard. It’s very clear in saying that Saudi Arabia lacks religious the United States, how can we assume that other partners in the freedom. It talks about how the Shi’a minority and women are world can have a common understanding of freedom of religion disadvantaged by particular Islamic interpretations, specifically or belief? Wahhabism.

Of course, there are things that can be shared and common ac- But here is my point: Those are words. That’s not a policy. This tions can be envisaged between Europe and the United States. is an example of focusing on religious persecution rhetorically But at the global level, I think this is becoming more and more without advancing religious freedom. Having said that, I believe of a civilizational issue. Religious freedom will be one of those every country represented in this room has a national interest, Huntingtonian dividing lines on which the world will divide and this is a legitimate exercise of state sovereignty. Saudi Arabia and on which we will all need to take a firm position in the next is a country with huge religious freedom problems. I don’t be- few years because of the increasing amount of religious persecu- lieve that we can simply sweep aside all of our other interests and tion. It leads to the need for more events like this one. focus only on religious freedom in Saudi Arabia.

TIMOTHY SAMUEL SHAH: Thank you. Tom, I’d like to turn However, I would add this: I do believe that the advancement of to you again. Would you comment on the discussion we’ve just religious freedom in Saudi Arabia, if it is done the right way— had about unilateral versus multilateral approaches? Pasquale has probably not even using the phrase “religious freedom”—can just made some interesting observations about the fractured state advance American interests in that country. I would say the same of American views of religious freedom as a barrier to more ef- thing about Iran or China. They are all different, but in each fective promotion of religious freedom by Western countries. Do case arguments can be made that speak to the interests of that you have any comments on that? country. It doesn’t involve waving Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in front of them. THOMAS FARR: Well, I think at some level multilateralism is good simply because there are a lot of people and a lot of groups So how do you do this? The only common-sense answer I have is that are at least rowing in the same direction. The problem is you figure out what they see as their own interest, and you ask: that if you have a group of people who do not agree on what it Is the advancement of religious freedom—or religious toleration, is they’re doing or where they’re rowing the boat to, it’s going to or getting along with neighbors, or equality under the law—pos- be a bit less effective. sible in that country? Is it possible for the opinion-shapers and the policymakers in a given country to see it as in their interest? It’s very interesting to hear the criticism coming from Europeans And I think the answer is often “yes.” In China, it has to do on the United States’ disarray when it comes to religious free- with sustained economic development. Saudi Arabia is a tougher dom. I happen to agree with that criticism. In fact, I think it’s case, but the day may come when we have the answer. I think very hard for the United States as a policymaking entity to ad- it is easier for countries of the Muslim-majority world that have vance religious freedom if it doesn’t believe in it and if it doesn’t opted for democracy or self-governance in some fashion. That understand what it is. would mean Iraq, Pakistan, or Egypt—although Iraq is in a ter- rible state now.

BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 47 So promoting religious freedom multilaterally is a good idea, but given society who see the advantages of religious freedom in you can’t be going in different directions. You have to under- their own societies. If we can’t figure that out, we can’t advance stand what it is you’re promoting and how to do it. I think this religious freedom. And if we can’t advance religious freedom, is a good thing to do. We should be doing more of it, and that’s we can’t reduce religious persecution. why we’re having this conversation. TIMOTHY SAMUEL SHAH: We have numerous officials TIMOTHY SAMUEL SHAH: Thank you, Tom. Ambassador from Western governments in this room right now who are re- Leahy? sponsible for, or at least partly responsible for, the international religious freedom policies of their governments. We have Am- ANNE LEAHY: I’d like to introduce a distinction here. We’re bassador David Saperstein. Thank you, Ambassador Saperstein, talking, of course, about governments. We’re talking about the for all that you do. He is the head of the International Religious U.S. government and the EU. In terms of leading a discussion Freedom Office of the State Department. We have Sue Breeze of on the benefits of allowing freedom of religion—and, speak- the British Foreign Commonwealth Office working on religious ing of Saudi Arabia, sectarian freedom within Islam as well— freedom. We have Sofia Lemmetyinen working in the European I think the best-placed people are not government officials, Union. What is one thing that these officials could do tomorrow but parliamentarians. An interesting development in terms of that would serve to advance a more coordinated, effective policy the dialogue on international religious freedom has been the for promoting international religious freedom? formation of the International Panel of Parliamentarians for Freedom of Religion or Belief, because they have legitimacy. PASQUALE ANNICCHINO: In Europe and the United States Most of them have been elected, so they speak for society. They I see people increasingly talking to each other and sharing best don’t decree social values. I see limits to “cognitive recogni- practices. This is something that they can do to better implement tion” or “cognitive contamination” when it comes to some fun- their policy. I would strongly encourage sharing, and I know that damentalists—to use Peter there are informal groups that Berger’s expression from this have been created that have morning—but overall it does “In terms of Canada, we like to been working very hard. So work. This is probably a more think that we are a model in terms of I’m quite confident that this fruitful avenue. I just wanted kind of sharing of best prac- us to remember the elected reasonable accommodation of various tices can be improved. representatives. communities, whether they’re the First Nations, the French, the English, AHMET KURU: A legal and THOMAS FARR: That’s or newly arrived immigrants… This practical basis for a meritoc- exactly right. It goes beyond experience impresses more than another racy, in which people are hired governments, and it even series of annual reports… I think we and promoted based on their goes beyond parliamentar- should concentrate more on action than merits rather than religious ians. We had a lot of talk this on preaching.” identities, is vital. That’s the morning about civil society. genius of the U.S. Constitu- It goes to the faith-based ele- tion prohibiting a religious Anne Leahy ments of civil society. When test. In the Middle East, for I say “advance religious free- example, there is this wide- dom by determining the in- spread idea that if you do not terest of a given country,” it isn’t just about old guys with white hire someone of the same religion or sect, somehow the other hair. Have you ever seen any of those in the State Department sect will capture the state’s power and eliminate you. The idea sitting across from other guys and gals with white hair? The of capturing the state’s power and then using it against the other point is, it’s not just about government-to-government interac- group creates mistrust. In the Middle East, that’s the basis of tions. Advancing religious freedom on the part of the United the violation of religious freedom. If you ask people personally, States—with its allies or by itself—must involve more than they say, “Oh, why not? Of course, it’s good thing.” But when simply government-to-government talks. It must begin there. it comes to practice it’s much different. For example, in Iraq, It must involve that. But it’s got to empower those within any when a Shi’a becomes prime minister, he makes each and every

48 BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 cabinet minister, police chief, and military general Shi’a. This is a vicious circle, and the sectarian conflict turns into a bloody fight. Western governments could do a better job of promoting meritocracy.

ANNE LEAHY: Well, those people should attend meetings with their respective ministers of the interior responsible for migra- tion, for hiring practices, for newly-arrived people, and so on.

THOMAS FARR: On the principle that you can’t sell a product by yourself—let alone with 10 other people who disagree over what the product is that you’re selling—I would argue that we need a transatlantic covenant on the meaning and value of reli- gious freedom so that we can agree on what it is we are attempt- ing to advance.

TIMOTHY SAMUEL SHAH: Fantastic. Now we’ll take ques- tions.

COLE DURHAM: Tom articulated the importance of appeal- ing to national interest. Does that get in the way sometimes? Reading some of your work, I understand how persuasive it Anne Leahy would be within the Western foreign policy establishment. But I’m wondering if other countries would see it as a vindication of freedom, however we articulate it, with their understanding of the notion that what’s really behind religious freedom is national what their interests are, then and only then can we succeed in interest. So how does articulating things in terms of national in- doing this. terest get in the way of things? As to your second point, I could not agree more that a diversity Then I have a second question. We need a common approach. of approaches, tactics, and strategies is very important. But the But to what extent are our different approaches sometimes help- real issue here is that even with the differences in strategies and ful? Sometimes people in some countries will better relate to Eu- tactics, if you don’t agree on what it is that you’re doing—which rope than to the United States. I’ve heard it said that the United hill you’re taking, to use a military analogy—a diversity of tactics States leads by irritation. [Laughter] is not going to help you.

TIMOTHY SAMUEL SHAH: That’s a great question. I actu- PASQUALE ANNICCHINO: On the issue of the national ally recently heard that Ambassador Bennett, the Canadian am- interest I subscribe to what Tom has said about the national bassador for religious freedom, likes Canada to play a good cop interest of other countries. But sometimes advancing poli- to America’s bad cop on international religious freedom promo- cies on religious freedom or supporting civil society can also tion. So maybe there is something to your question. be the unintended consequence of Western states promoting their own national interest. I have seen this recently in my own THOMAS FARR: Let me first say that my argument that this country, Italy, which has had a quite active foreign policy in is a U.S. national interest issue has not become a big bestseller Africa. If you look at the case of Meriam Ibrahim, for instance, within the United States. We have a ways to go. There are Ameri- the people in Sudan didn’t really like the U.S. diplomats who cans who are writing that that’s exactly what we’re trying to do: were trying to free Meriam Ibrahim. Italy had developed some that we’re trying to impose religious freedom on others as a na- connections with the Sudanese government because of other tional interest. But my argument is beyond that. It is that we national interests, and the U.S. diplomats turned to the Ital- need to appeal to the national interest of other countries in the ians to free Meriam Ibrahim. So it was an unintended conse- way that we do this. If we can combine the notion of religious quence of Italy advancing its own foreign policy interests in

BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 49 “A legal and practical basis for a meritocracy, in which people are hired and promoted based on their merits rather than religious identities, is vital. That’s the genius of the U.S. Constitution prohibiting a religious test. In the Middle East, for example, there is this widespread idea that if you do not hire someone of the same religion or sect, somehow the other sect will capture the state’s power and eliminate you.” Ahmet Kuru

Africa. Even when you talk to policymakers, you should always and we’re your neighbors. I think this is the underlying prin- be aware that the advancement of religious freedom, or at least ciple in the universal document. It was the basis for the discus- the prevention of religious persecution, can be a kind of unin- sions in the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Eu- tended consequence of other policies. rope, the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, and the East-West discussions that brought down communism. TIMOTHY SAMUEL SHAH: Yes, Ahmet. We are not exporting a specific model.

AHMET KURU: It should be goal-based rather than means- TIMOTHY SAMUEL SHAH: Cole’s questions sparked a long based. The end result is more important. For example, the Unit- colloquy here. We have about 10 other people who want to ask ed States has separation of church and state. To a certain extent, a question. the United Kingdom has an established church. Germany is collecting church taxes. So the institutional structures of these ANNA DILLON: Thank you. I’m Anna Dillon from the states may differ, but the end result should be the freedom of Church of Scientology. My question is for Mr. Farr. It’s a corol- human beings as evaluated and expressed by themselves. lary to your recent comment on blasphemy laws, but it’s also about the point you made that it has to be clear that there is a THOMAS FARR: Ahmet said America has separation. De- limit to religious freedom. Do you have a suggestion about a pending on what he means, he’s absolutely right. But by that more proper way to do it at the public policy level, if it should some people mean that America has no religion in the public be limited at the public policy level at all? My background is square—that it’s literally privatized. I’m not sure that’s what you Russian. My country is a very bad example of attempts to limit mean; I doubt it. But the separation in that sense is nowhere religious freedom by infringing on the rights of very peaceful in the American constitutional experiment. The American First communities that don’t mean to be extremists at all. Amendment invited religion into the public square. That is the whole basis of our understanding of religious freedom. This THOMAS FARR: In Russia, you have to look at what Rus- is what I think can appeal to Muslim-majority countries and sians will respond to—not just the minorities in Russia, be- other religiously-based countries. We’re not saying that you cause they are not going to be able to change this, but the have to take your religion and throw it out as a citizen of your stakeholders, the opinion shapers, the government—and make country; quite the contrary. You do have to accept limits. One arguments to them. In this case, it’s almost as hard as some of of them is you can’t pass anti-blasphemy laws because you’re the other countries because it’s an authoritarian regime. using the powers of the state to silence criticism of your own re- ligion, both by your own people and by others. It doesn’t work If I were trying to chart a strategy for Russia at a public policy well. But religious freedom can work well for you. level, it would be to try to wean the Russian Orthodox Church away from its tendency to want to maintain a monopoly on TIMOTHY SAMUEL SHAH: I would argue that the kind of religion in its own country, which is harming not only Russia American model of passive secularism may be more exportable. in my view, but the Russian Orthodox Church. I wouldn’t put it quite that way. I would try to talk about Russian interests. ANNE LEAHY: I would shy away from trying to export any That’s just an example of trying to play to the interests of the specific model to another country and another continent with country. In this case, the Russian Orthodox Church is a very a different culture. For example, Canada has blasphemy laws, important civil society organization. I hope that helps.

50 BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 TIMOTHY SAMUEL SHAH: Next we have Sofia Lemmety- tion on religious liberty. It deals with this issue. Nowhere in the inen of the European Union. Catholic declaration on religious liberty is the word conscience used as frequently as it is used nowadays. Since 1965 it has SOFIA LEMMETYINEN: Thank you. I have a question for gotten worse. A footnote written by John Courtney Murray Tom. You mentioned this transatlantic covenant on freedom of says that conscience means I get to do whatever I want to do religion or belief. just because I say my conscience says I can do it. Conscience untethered is meaningless. But religion, as I define it, is what a THOMAS FARR: Not belief, just religious freedom. I didn’t human being does when he or she is seeking truth, when he or add that word. she is seeking the answers to the ultimate questions.

SOFIA LEMMETYINEN: Oh, sorry. That’s my line, I’m A person can have a belief in the Democratic Party or a convic- afraid. But my first question is: Why do we need that? We have tion that he’s got to do this or that. Those are all beliefs. I fear the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. We that the term has been cooked up by people who don’t want have the General Comment 22, which explains what this right religion in the public square. So that’s why I think we ought is. So why do we need a new religious freedom policy? Second, to have a covenant on freedom of religion, because religion is what would it include? definable. You don’t have to like it. There are a lot of religions that I don’t particularly like. But I believe every human being THOMAS FARR: Why do we need it? We have Article 18. We has the right to pursue the religious quest. That’s not the same have the European conventions. We have the Muslim conven- thing as pursuing belief, whatever that means. tions. We have a lot of paper. A lot of people signed up to a lot of things that say they believe in religious freedom and belief. TIMOTHY SAMUEL SHAH: Thank you, Tom. We’ve got There is a famous line by James Madison about a parchment about 10 minutes, and I know there are many, many questions. barrier. They are just words. I don’t believe that anyone can argue that religious freedom isn’t anything other than in a crisis around FABIO PETITO: I actually think that when you were talking the world. If you look at the Pew Research reports, or if you just about all the problems that we face in the world, you’re very look at the television, listen to the radio, or read the newspapers, much talking about religious persecution. I think that’s where you know that it is in sad shape in virtually every region in the we now need to focus, even in the transatlantic and multilateral world. There are different symptoms of it. There is violent reli- dialogues. I want to suggest that one of the reasons why the gious persecution in Iraq and Syria. There are periodic, vicious promotion of religious freedom in American foreign policy has crackdowns in China. There are big problems in Russia. There failed is that it was unclear what you were promoting. are problems in India with radical Hinduism. There are prob- lems in Sri Lanka and Burma with radical forms of Buddhism. In this respect, we need to understand that the United States I would argue that there are problems in the West and in the is the exception. It has a model of church-state relationship, a United States, including growing government restrictions and wall of separation, that is unique in the world, and that poses a social hostilities with respect to religion in the public square. huge problem in even talking about promotion. I would argue contrary to what you are saying. All the models of religion-state We have signed up to all of these covenants, and some of them arrangements that you find in Europe are much more useful intend to be binding, such as the International Covenant on and compatible with Muslim-majority countries, because in Civil and Political Rights and Article 18. Countries have signed some ways it’s impossible to think of a model of state-religion up to that, and that’s supposed to be binding. It hasn’t worked. separation in many other parts of the world. I’m not arguing for doing away with them, nor am I arguing for a binding covenant. I am arguing for a covenant among our In other words, I think it is very important to know what we governments in which we would agree on what it is we’re doing. mean when we promote religious freedom. My feeling is that, with all the discussion going on at the moment, it’s much bet- And here I come to freedom of religion or belief. I don’t have ter to just focus on religious persecution. The other thing called anything against belief. I just don’t know what the heck it religious freedom is too complicated, too different, and has means. But I do know what religion means. There is a famous many counterproductive results. line in a footnote in Dignitatis Humanae, the Catholic declara-

BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 51 As for Tom Farr’s comments, when Europeans say belief, I agree with you it’s not clear, but in all the other texts, it means all the philosophical opinions. It’s coming from Belgium. We are having a great discussion with Belgium about what is laic- ite. They always say, “Well, you can be religious, but you must accept those qui croient aussi que les ne croient pas”—“those who believe as well as those who do not believe.” This is why we agree with this text.

But the freedom of religion in the public square is present. Religious freedom is present for everyone. Religious freedom with limits is present. The only thing that a diplomat from France will not do is introduce religion in his diplomacy. That’s where we have to work together to find another way of speak- ing about the role of religion. Maybe it can be through full citizenship or liberty of conscience. We have to work on that. We cannot avoid religion or block the discussion about the understanding of religion. But I would not, in the European context, say that religion is for everybody.

TIMOTHY SAMUEL SHAH: Thank you. How would you respond to Monsieur Clermont?

Ahmet Kuru AHMET KURU: Let me start with the American model and TIMOTHY SAMUEL SHAH: Thank you, Fabio. then the French model. American passive secularism has been a very complex, evolving thing. But there are two basic things. JEAN-ARNOLD DE CLERMONT: I speak from the French One is that the lawmaking process should be secular. That’s European context. I’ve been the president of the French Prot- what Muslim countries should accept. The second thing is that estant Federation for eight years. I put this as a question to the states should not try to eliminate religion from the public Ahmet Kuru, but also as a comment. When you speak of active sphere. Many Muslim-majority countries—and I mentioned secularism, are you speaking of the Law of Separation of 1905? that 23 out of 49 are secular—emulated French assertive secu- It’s seen by Catholics, of course, as the result of an active secu- larism because they are former colonies of France, the Soviet larism. They don’t like the Enlightenment, and the Enlighten- Union, and the Netherlands. American passive secularism is a ment was fundamental for the understanding of the world for very good alternative because of these two main pillars. religions. But if you look at it from the Protestant side, it’s really a law of freedom for all religions. If we look at the history of the United States, initially it was neutral toward Protestant denominations. It was discriminat- So if you go to 2011, the context is totally different. It’s a re- ing against Jews and Catholics. Then it embraced Jews and ligious-political context. I agree with you that from the left to Catholics, and now we have problems with Muslims, Mor- the extreme right, there is an anti-Islamic position in France. mons, and some atheists. But look at the U.S. Supreme Court. Sarkozy was following popular opinion much more than his Out of nine members, there are six Catholics, three Jews, and own head when he accepted the law banning headscarves. But no Protestants. For a Protestant-majority country—and one if a Muslim in France has the courage today to go to the Euro- with some anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic history—this is a pean Court of Justice, France will be condemned on that issue, great achievement that we do not see anywhere else. I fully because this position of banning the scarf is totally contrary to support importing this evolution to any country. all freedom of religion laws—even the European one. So I must say that in our active secularism, religion and philosophy are Regarding France, I agree with you on many things. The present in the public square. 1905 law was very much anti-Catholic, and it closed down

52 BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 Catholic schools. Many priests had to leave the country. It’s democratic understanding, you are turning it upside down, a long debate. I understand the Protestant perspective may I would argue. I’m not sure we’re disagreeing; perhaps we’re be different. Let me give you one simple example: the halal not. food for Muslim kids in schools. I’ve been engaging with the local authorities in the San Diego area about how to integrate My final point is this: I don’t think this represents what you Muslim kids into American society. They tell me that they would call religion in the public square. I do think this does are encouraging Muslim kids to ask for halal food in schools not happen in France, as it has historically in the United States, in order to express their identities. They see it as a value, as a and the examples are legion. Martin Luther King, Dorothy Day, contribution, and as hospitality. But in France, Muslim kids the anti-slavery movement, the prohibition movement—all the are forced to eat pork sometimes. Maybe it happened in just great movements in American history, some of them going in a few small cases. But there is still unfortunately a difference the wrong direction—were all motivated by religious arguments, between the two countries. many of them explicitly so. People were quoting from their sa- cred scriptures to change the laws. I mean, Martin Luther King THOMAS FARR: By way of answering my French colleague, was a Baptist minister writing from a jail in Birmingham, Ala- let me address what Fabio and Ahmet said. I mean, I think we bama and quoting the Bible. By the way, both Thomas Aquinas need an American covenant on religious freedom before we and Saint Augustine were Catholics, but we’ll leave that aside. do the transatlantic one. Fabio says that religious freedom in the Unit- So religion in the public square is ed States is represented by the wall “Don’t just curse the darkness of vital if you’re going to go into the of separation between church and lands of Islam and talk about reli- state, which Ahmet translates into religious persecution. Actually gious freedom. We ought not talk the idea that lawmaking should be advance religious freedom. It’s very about getting your religion out of secular, or a form of passive secu- hard to do, but it’s the only way to the public square, but inviting it in larism. Depending on what you make this work.” and accommodating it to the rules mean, I may agree entirely, but let of a liberal democracy, and espe- me tell you what I think it means Thomas Farr cially the rule of equality of all the properly. citizens of a given state.

The wall of separation is to protect religion from the state, PASQUALE ANNICCHINO: I just want to make a comment not to protect the state from religion. It is nowhere in the on one thing. Actually, the invention of the sentence that Tom American Constitution. It’s only mentioned in a letter from just mentioned, “All men are created equal,” in the Declaration President Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists. But it of Independence is actually not an American invention. It’s a has become an article of faith for some to mean keeping re- European and Italian invention. Thomas Jefferson paraphrased ligion out of politics. This is where I think America is quite that from Filippo Mazzei, an Italian who was his neighbor in unusual, although I think it is losing some of this—as Os Monticello. He was also expelled from the Catholic Church in Guinness said this morning. The American settlement was to Italy. There is a U.S. Congressional resolution stating this just invite religion into the public square—not just in terms of for the sake of showing that we can actually cooperate transat- what you can wear, not just in terms of whether you can have lantically. your churches and your synagogues and all the rest of it, but so that people can make religious arguments in lawmaking. THOMAS FARR: All right. There is the beginning of the cov- enant. Ahmet, you said that law making should be secular. Well, de- pending on what that means, I may agree with you. But there TIMOTHY SAMUEL SHAH: If we keep talking long is a radical religious, theological truth claim at the root of enough, we might be in danger of having real agreements de- American democracy: All men are created equal. That is a re- spite what we’re showing. [Laughter] Thank you. This was an ligious claim. That is not a secular claim. It has to do with the extraordinary panel. We generated a wonderful, vigorous, and nature of God and the nature of what a human being is. So illuminating conversation. [Applause] if you’re going to remove public religion from the American

BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 53 How Can Western Democracies’ Religious Freedom Policy Advance National and International Security?

THOMAS FARR: A lot of scholars are writing about the rela- away from it. We don’t say, “You just can’t say that.” As long as tionship between religion and violence. But the central issue of you say it with respect, you have to say it. So we’re not attacking this panel is less well-trodden: the relationship between religious Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, or any other religion freedom and violence. To put it more pointedly, can religious in talking about the relationship between religion and violence, freedom, as has been asserted by Allen Hertzke and others, play and we certainly aren’t criticizing anybody’s religion when we’re a role in undermining religion-related violence, religion-based talking about the relationship between religious freedom and civil war, violent religious persecution, and perhaps most impor- religion-related violence. tantly for our purposes, religion-related terrorism? Let me introduce our panel briefly. I’m not going to read their We are immediately in a contentious field, because we’re talking whole bios, but again, as in all of our panels today, we have a re- about people’s religious beliefs, and in particular how there are ally good combination of different points of view and representa- radicals within particular religions today. Today we have a po- tives of different countries. Monica Duffy Toft is a professor of tentially virulent form of Hindu nationalist extremism in India. government and public policy at Oxford University’s Blavatnik We have in Burma an odd but virulent fusion of Buddhism with School of Government. Monica is a colleague and friend of the nationalism that is harming people, particularly the Muslim mi- Religious Freedom Project. Prior to going to Oxford, she served nority and some Christian minorities. But the largest problem is as a professor at the Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School. violent Islamist extremism in the form of ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Boko Her research interests include not only international relations, but Haram, and others. religion nationalism, ethnic conflict, civil and interstate wars, the relationship between demography and national security, and mili- If you’re going to talk about other people’s religion, you’ve got tary and strategic planning. Monica was an associate scholar with to do it with respect. We pride ourselves in doing that at the our Religious Freedom Project from 2011 through 2013. Monica, Religious Freedom Project. But we talk about it. We don’t shy I’m delighted you’re here today. Thank you for coming.

54 BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 Next to Monica is Sue Breeze. Sue is a career diplomat in the Welcome to you all. I’m going to pose a question to all of you, United Kingdom. As it happens I am a recovering diplomat but let’s start with Monica and work our way down the panel. from the American Foreign Service. [Laughter] Sue, there is a To what degree does religion cause violent extremism, terrorism, wonderful life ahead. Is that a funny joke in the United King- and even civil war? Is there a certain kind of religion or a cer- dom? I hope it is. [Laughter] tain kind of political theology that fosters violence by its nature? What implications does the relationship between religion and Her most recent posting was as deputy ambassador to Venezue- violent extremism have for religious freedom? We’ll leave that la. She has served as assistant private secretary to four ministers last part off until we get a little further. But let’s talk about this in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and she currently relationship between religion and violence. heads a team responsible for the United Kingdom’s work in promoting freedom of religion or belief, as well as other equal- MONICA TOFT: Sure. So as a good academic, I want to re- ity issues such as the rights of women and children. All of these frame the question or just ask it slightly differently, because I are relevant to what we want to talk about today. don’t think we want to implicate religion. Religion operates within a context, and if you look at the violence that we’re wit- Next is Pasquale Ferrara, who joined the Italian Foreign Office nessing around the world, there are sort of three aspects that you in 1984. Pasquale has spent much of his career in Italy and want to be thinking about. abroad, including overseas postings in Chile and the United States, so The first is that you want to actually he knows the American system. “What is ISIS saying about look at the ideas that are motivating His time in Europe includes a po- what they’re doing? They’re people in the public sphere. The sec- sition in Brussels, so he knows the using very Islamic terminology. ond is the political institutions or the European Union. He was involved, If you don’t understand what political environment in which reli- among other things, in the launch- gious actors are acting. And the third ing of the European Convention. a caliphate is, if you don’t is the religious actors themselves. Recently, at the Italian Ministry of understand the basis on which We’ve heard a lot of discussion about Foreign Affairs, he served as head of ISIS has based its ideology, the varieties of secularism. We’ve the press office, and subsequently as then how can you deal with heard about the different kinds of the director of the ministry’s Analy- and counter it?” states, including repressive and dem- sis and Planning Unit. So he’s had ocratic states, and how violence will a lot of experience on the ground, Sue Breeze usually emerge when there is some but he’s also had a lot of experience repression happening to a religious thinking through how the Italian group. It may be perpetrated directly Foreign Ministry should articulate its goals and how it should by the state itself, and there are two variants of that. There’s a present itself, as well as do its job. It would be interesting to hyper-secularizing state, if you want to call it that. Turkey would talk about this issue of national interest. be an example. There’s a campaign to impose a particular variant of Islam, and the Kurdish nationalists don’t abide by that. It has And last but by no means least, I want to welcome for the first time created tensions. It’s not exclusively about religion; there’s also to the Religious Freedom Project Nilay Saiya. Nilay is a student of nationalism mixed in with it. our colleague and friend, Dan Philpott, whom you’ve heard from this morning. Nilay is an assistant professor of political science The second is where you have a state that’s trying to impose a and director of international studies at the State University of New particular form of religion. If you think about Tajikistan after York in Brockport. His research concerns the influence of religion the end of the Cold War, there was a group that wanted to im- on global politics, and he’s done some groundbreaking research pose very strict sharia law. They were fought by former commu- on the relationship between religious freedom and religion as it nists and we ended up having a civil war. Similarly, Sudan has relates to terrorism and religion-related violence. His scholarship its Islamization campaign. I’ve done a lot of work on Sudan. The has appeared or is forthcoming in Conflict Management and Peace question there is: Was it really against the Christians, or was it Science, Holy Land Studies, International Journal of Human Rights, just against non-Muslims? One of the things I think we should and a whole host of other scholarly journals. talk about is being very clear about the categories. If we talk

BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 55 about this repression dynamic and the cycle toward violence, we nomic growth, religious actors are often the impoverished class. need to be really clear about what is being repressed. So it’s about economic issues, too. It’s extraordinarily compli- cated. But I think it’s understandable if you are clear about the In the case of Sudan, Khartoum was carrying out this Islamiza- categories, the actors involved, the ideas that they’re trying to tion campaign by trying to impose sharia law throughout the advance and protect, and the state’s reaction to it. land. It wasn’t necessarily repressing Christianity per se, though people can disagree. It was trying to impose a particular variant THOMAS FARR: All right. So it’s never simply about religion. of a faith across the whole land—in this case, a very Wahhabi I think that’s exactly right. I mean, the Kurds are a very good style of Islam. You can think about Sudan as an empire with a example of that. I can remember back in the State Department lot of different constituents who didn’t abide by those norms when we were trying to sort out what was happening in the Bal- and rules. kans with Milosevic and to what extent this was a religion-re- lated war. After all, it was Serbian Orthodox Christians fighting Then the last is actually communal violence, which we don’t talk against Muslims in Albania and elsewhere. We had a big fight about very much. The state is actually unable to pull conflicting within the State Department, and we ended up deciding that parties apart and implement peace. It is often a bystander to that if religion played a significant role in the persecution, then we kind of violence. The paramount case here is India, where you’ve should call it religious persecution. got Muslim-Hindu violence and rioting on a regular basis. But let me just push back a little bit on your notion that Al-Qa- And so, with the connection between religion and violence, you eda was primarily the result of oppression in Saudi Arabia. If you really have to look at the context and the demands being made. look at Osama bin Laden—and maybe he isn’t the best example, It doesn’t happen instantaneously. Scholars know that there are but he’s the one we tend to associate with Al-Qaeda—he was, so periods in which there are demands being made, in which peo- far as I know, not oppressed as a youth. He was raised in Wah- ple or religious actors are saying, “We don’t agree with what the habism, a particular interpretation of Islam. He sort of gradu- state is doing.” There’s some time to maybe pull back and have ated from that. He sat at the feet of one of the Muslim Brothers, some conciliatory measures or accommodations. But if it gets Sayyid Qutb’s brother. He doesn’t appear to fit the prototype of to the point where the religious actors feel as if their rights and somebody who has been repressed, becomes outraged, and then privileges are being abrogated in some way, they feel they may moves into violence. have no choice. This is the case for the Muslim Brotherhood throughout the Middle East. They were put in jails, and they MONICA TOFT: I agree. I mean, there are different interpre- felt as if they had no choice. The origins of Al-Qaeda have been tations of Islam. We can talk about jihadism. Qutb changed traced—Thomas Hegghammer has a brilliant book on this—to what it means to have a jihad, that it actually was now an in- the repression and imprisonment in Saudi Arabia, and now we dividual obligation and not just an internal call to go and help have a transnational network perpetrating violence and an even the collective. But I think some scholars make the case that more extreme group, ISIS, that’s an offshoot of it. had they been able to vent and actually be heard within Saudi Arabia, rather than be completely repressed, that there could So I’d say that it’s not religion per se. It’s the interaction of politi- have been opportunities or punctuated moments where Al- cal institutions and the state; how they’re dealing with religion; Qaeda could have been denuded as an organization. Instead it the degree of independence of religious actors; how repressive got pushed out. the state is; the ideas that are being promulgated; and whether those ideas can be freely engaged within the state or polity that’s And then you had Ayman al-Zawahiri, the actual ideologue. involved. There were big debates within Al-Qaeda about what it was try- ing to do and what its ultimate objective was. Was there going THOMAS FARR: Thank you, Monica. So it’s not simple. It’s to be a war, a fight from within? Or were they going to have to complicated. take it from without? Zawahiri was assassinated—we still don’t know the details of that—and bin Laden became the person MONICA TOFT: Yes. And the other thing is that often it’s not who decided he was going to take the fight to the West, in religion alone that’s implicated, which is why this is so compli- part because he did not have the capacity to challenge it within cated. When we start talking about democratization and eco- Saudi Arabia. Then he went to Sudan and Afghanistan, and

56 BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 Thomas Farr introduces the panelists now here we are today after the fiasco in Iraq and Syria with MONICA TOFT: No. They didn’t see the revolution coming. the emergence of ISIS. What they saw was a shift in the political theology about what it means to be a Shi’a against what they perceived to be a state not So I think the argument I’d make, Tom, is that had there been serving the citizens that it should be serving. You’re absolutely the ability for some of these ideas to be vetted much more so in right. It’s quite clear that it was the “revolution out of nowhere,” the public square and the public arena, those ideas could have as Timur Kuran argues. been publicly challenged rather than allowed to fester. The Ira- nian Revolution was quite similar. There was a huge transforma- THOMAS FARR: There was a study by a CIA analyst in tion in the ideas of what it means to be a Shi’a, the pacifist versus 1977 or 1978 in which the analyst tried to make the argu- the non-pacifist or quietist tradition. It was sort of pushed down ment that there was a religiously-motivated revolution brew- by this very secularizing Iranian state, and then all of a sudden ing. It was rejected by somebody high in the CIA, who wrote you have a revolution against the Shah. It seemed to come out contemptuously across the top of the analysis—I wish Peter of nowhere, but experts who studied this saw it coming for a Berger was still here—the word “sociology.” By this the high decade. These ideas said, “Yes, we actually have the right and re- official meant to say that this was a waste of time, a study of sponsibility to challenge the state and maybe take over the state.” things that have nothing to do with the real world. But in These are still very controversial within Shi’ism, but because they fact 1979 turned out by some interpretations to be precisely were not able to be debated within Iran, there was this explosive that—a religious revolution. My only point here is that we revolution in 1979. Ayatollah Khomeini took power in 1979. have often failed to understand that religion has an impact— for better or worse. THOMAS FARR: Well, that’s interesting that you say a lot of people saw it coming, because the American foreign policy ap- But let’s get back to the question of religion and violence. I don’t paratus was not part of that group. want to get completely away from this question of what caused

BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 57 not only Al-Qaeda but ISIS today, and it seems to me very dif- ficult to argue that this only comes out of oppression. Sue, give us your views on this.

SUE BREEZE: Okay. So Monica came at it from an academic perspective. I come at it from a policymaker’s perspective, which is to look at what’s going on, to try and understand it, and then to decide what to do about it. I always come at it from a very practical focus.

You just asked whether we saw these various things coming. As policymakers, I think we often don’t see things coming because we don’t understand enough of the religious mindset. It’s very tempting for diplomats based in Western secular states to dismiss religion as irrational, to rule it out as an influence, to treat it as sociology or something that you don’t really need to engage with. And I think that’s a fundamental error.

We need to look at what people are saying. You mentioned ISIS. What is ISIS saying about what they’re doing? They’re using very Islamic terminology. If you don’t understand what a caliphate Sue Breeze is, if you don’t understand the basis on which ISIS has based its ideology, then how can you deal with and counter it? What is the role of governments in all of this? The role of govern- ments is not to negotiate with the Islamic State. We can’t negoti- We’re thinking in the United Kingdom about radicalization ate with an organization such as that. What we need are strong and what leads people to be radicalized. It’s not just people who alternative voices that can reform and counter, and if we deny have a lack of opportunities. There are people in the United the religious roots of what organizations such as the Islamic State Kingdom, some of whom are quite prosperous, who are aban- are doing, then we disempower those reforming voices that we doning their families and traveling out to fight for the Islamic need to encourage to speak up. State because they get caught up in the messages that it’s put- ting out. And if we don’t understand the appeal, then how can THOMAS FARR: Very good. People may disagree with Sue, we possibly hope to counter it or engage it? It’s difficult for but I tend to agree with her that it’s impossible to negotiate with those of us in the West, partly because of the media. I think these people. She called for other voices; including all voices, of the media has a very responsible role to play. And if you look at course, is another way of talking about religious freedom. But the way that incidents that I would regard as religious violence there remains this problem of what to do if you can’t negoti- are described, the religious aspect is often downplayed from ate and you can’t use diplomacy. I would think it’s obvious that the very beginning. And for people who don’t have an under- you’re not going to undermine ISIS by developing voices around standing of religion, how can they understand what’s behind the area that counter them. Some of those voices already exist something if the media doesn’t report the facts fully? within Islam and elsewhere within that community.

There’s also a question about how we deal with the Islamic State. This leads to the view that military action is the only way to get Do we try to negotiate with them? Do we believe that the Islamic rid of the scourge. People should say what they want about that. State is willing to negotiate, that they’re going to come to some But at some point in this conversation, we’ll come to the hopeful sort of compromise based on getting better economic well-being position that one day ISIS will be eliminated by some means, for their people? I’m not sure that’s right. In fact, I would argue and then the real work begins. that it’s not. And if we don’t understand religion, the temptation is to say that you can negotiate with these people, that you can I will add this: It is true that because of what ISIS is doing, the reach a compromise. Christian and Yazidi and other communities are being inten-

58 BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 tionally exterminated in Iraq and Syria. There’s been a big debate though the grouping of the words religious terrorism is com- in the United States over whether this is genocide; if it isn’t, I’m mon, there is not necessarily a natural relationship between the not quite sure what genocide is. The problem with that word is two. For instance, some of history’s greatest human rights ac- that if a legal entity adopts it, it has to do something about it, tivists—Martin Luther King, Jr., Archbishop Desmond Tutu, and that something, of course, would probably mean military Dorothy Day, Sheikh Jalal Said, Mahatma Gandhi, the Dalai action. Even this morning, I got an e-mail reporting that three Lama, Pope John Paul II—were all motivated by their faith. At more Assyrian Christians who had been captured by ISIS had the same time, some of history’s greatest mass murderers—Pol been brutally executed on video. Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Mao—were all staunch atheists. So there’s not necessarily a relationship here between religion and violence. This is bad stuff. We want to talk about human dignity and hu- man rights. We’re having a big problem in our own country even There’s also a second camp which sees religion very differently. It talking about this, let alone deciding what to do about it. But sees religion as something that is inherently peaceful. When reli- it’s really related in some fashion to religion and violence. That is gion turns violent, it is the result of external causes, such as for- what we want to put on the table. eign occupation, a legacy of colonialism, a lack of development, or poverty. I believe that this is the approach to religion that has Nilay, you have written a lot about this, particularly the issue of been taken by successive American presidential administrations. religious freedom. Hold off on that for the moment—I really It might also explain why recently a State Department spokes- want to get into your work in just a few moments. But maybe person suggested that the best way to defeat ISIS is through a you can deal with this issue of religion and violence as we’re talk- jobs program for the Middle East. ing about it now. I’m not suggesting that these factors can’t be contributory. They NILAY SAIYA: Sure. Many of those in policymaking and aca- certainly can, but again it would be a mistake not to take religion demia tend to hold one of two conflicting views when it comes seriously here. Take ISIS, for example. ISIS is very serious about to religion and violence. Some are quick to blame religion. They establishing a caliphate and hastening the apocalypse, and it’s see religion as something akin to a mental illness that’s prone to also serious about initiating a divinely ordained cosmic war. You violence. And of course, if this is what you think about religion, can’t explain ISIS’ actions and atrocities apart from its theologi- then the solution is obvious: You try to control it, and maybe even cal views. eliminate it. To be sure, religious belief can motivate a range of different religious pursuits when it comes to violence. For terror- I would argue for a third position here, or a middle ground. I ism rooted in fundamentalism, the objective is to return religion, would argue that while religion obviously matters, violent politi- state, and society to a proper golden age that existed at some point cal theology is much more likely to gain traction in conditions in the past. In contrast, for terrorism rooted in apocalypticism, of pervasive repression. The reason why is fairly straightforward. the goal isn’t to return to the past, but rather to hasten the end of Religious freedom promotes a diversity of views within and be- days through the initiation of a cosmic war. The idea is that this tween religious traditions by allowing religious individuals and war will be followed by a period of peace, in which all of earth’s communities to believe in private and to practice in public as inhabitants will live peacefully under the rule of the one, true faith. they see fit, free from interference. In these kinds of settings, Sometimes religious terrorists can pursue much more concrete and religious extremists will have their claims challenged in the mar- limited ambitions, such as ending abortion, establishing religious ketplace of ideas, and they will have to defend their views. Reli- law which would be binding upon the rest of society, removing a gious freedom, therefore, can serve as a force for diminishing the political leader from office, or even establishing a caliphate. attraction of religious extremism. Now, this isn’t to say that reli- giously free settings are free of religious terrorism or extremism, All of those goals can be rooted in religion. What ties all of these but the environment of religious freedom can serve to detract different groups together is that they ground their actions spe- the necessary logistical and ideological support that these groups cifically in the theological commands, divine duties, and impera- need in order to carry out acts of violence. tives of their faith. THOMAS FARR: I want to come back to the relationship Now, while religion obviously matters, it would be incorrect to between religious freedom and violence. You say that violence- assume that violence is the inevitable outcome of religion. Al- inspiring political theology is more likely in situations of repres-

BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 59 sion. If that’s a term that is not familiar to you, it sort of defines contested radically. Otherwise, we are doing a favor to the ones itself. Dan Philpott has written a great deal about political theol- that use violence just to advance a political agenda. And this is ogy, and in fact I use one of his essays on this subject in my class. what you need in order to transform a religion into a violent ac- tivity: You need a political agenda. In the case of ISIS, we should De Tocqueville said that every religion has some political opinion not forget that the political agenda is not only the creation of a attached to it by affinity. So it simply makes sense that religions caliphate, a reminder of the past, but it is to re-draw the borders have political views. They may be liberal political theologies, but in the Middle East, to re-write the Sykes-Picot Agreement of they also may be violent political theologies. And I take it that 1916. So it is a political agenda combined with a motivation that your point is that the latter is more likely to rise in positions is presented in terms of religion. of oppression. But is it theoretically possible for them simply to arise in university settings, and not as a result of torture or And in order for a religion to become violent, you need the sec- oppression? Can they arise simply because of a conviction that ond element, which is some sort of weird politics of identity. is embedded in the theology, that isn’t the result of oppression? When you attach to religion the very deep meaning of who you are, what you want to do, and what kind of community you NILAY SAIYA: Sure. Religious radicalism can exist anywhere. want to create—especially an exclusive community—this may We have our own religious terrorist groups here in the United become violent. States. Think of the Hutaree militia or the Covenant, the Sword, and the Arm of the Lord; these are both religious extremist or- But the third element, which is much more important, is what ganizations. But what’s interesting is that in the United States, I call the “weaponization” of religions. For example, when you these groups are not very powerful. And one of the things that have a nuclear program, you say it is a peaceful nuclear program, we need to take into account is how little religiously motivated but you can easily turn this program into weapons. And I think violence there has been in the United States, despite there being that the same process can happen with religion. You need to con- so many religious traditions and even extremist groups. My argu- sider that violence can be a tool to advance a political agenda. ment would be that environments with religious freedom have This is the reality we have to face. served to deprive these groups of the support that they need to carry out attacks, including ideological support. And also I would like to make the case—I’m a diplomat but I’m currently on leave at the European University Institute—for col- THOMAS FARR: I think that’s a very interesting argument. It laboration between academics and diplomacy. We live in a very has its detractors, though. Having made that argument myself, I complicated world. There are many elements and very compli- know not everybody buys it. Pasquale, let’s hear from you on this cated scenarios to evaluate, and I think collaboration between subject of religion and violence. the academia and policymakers is absolutely crucial. I tried to start this once when I was the head of policy planning at the PASQUALE FERRARA: Thank you. From this point on, I will Ministry of Foreign Affairs. When I arrived there—in a country give my take on the relation between terrorism and religions. that hosts the Vatican, you may believe that religion is the order When last year there was a terrible attack in a school in Pakistan of the day for diplomats—I discovered that there was no real at the border with Afghanistan, a very interesting campaign was connection between the foreign policy of the country and the launched on social media that may appear a little bit simplistic increasing role of religions in the international arena. So they if seen from an academic or diplomatic point of view. The cam- started a small program imitating the French. It’s not true that paign had a motto: “Terrorists have no religion.” And these very the French diplomats today do not care about religion. They cre- simple words made me think in a more articulated way of this ated a special unit that has the task of studying the influence of connection between religion and violence. We talk about reli- religion in foreign policy. And I think that this is really, really gious extremists, religious violence, and so on, but I think that important. We must work toward religious literacy with the dip- we must concentrate much more on violence and on terrorism, lomats and incorporate the arguments of intellectuals and think- rather than on religion. ers that do not have a political agenda or a governmental priority. They can help create a better foreign policy strategy. I’m not suggesting that religions are inherently peaceful, but ac- cepting that there could be some sort of theological justification THOMAS FARR: Thank you, Pasquale. I want to make sure I of violence from any religious point of view, I think, should be understand what you’re saying here, because I thought I heard

60 BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 “Although the grouping of the words religious terrorism is common, there is not necessarily a natural relationship between the two. For instance, some of history’s greatest human rights activists—Martin Luther King, Jr., Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Dorothy Day, Sheikh Jalal Said, Mahatma Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, Pope John Paul II—were all motivated by their faith. At the same time, some of history’s greatest mass murderers—Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Mao—were all staunch atheists. ”

Nilay Saiya

a contradiction. You began by noting that “terrorists have no community. I don’t think that this can be done in a dialogue religion,” that it is a mistake to attribute violence to religions. with religious leaders alone. You cannot expect from religions For those who commit terrorist acts, we should focus on the vio- what religions cannot deliver. So if the international politics are lence, not on the religion. And further, you seemed to say that, failing, it is the responsibility of the international community. in further evidence of that proposition, terrorism has a political This is the same reason why I react when I hear, “Oh, Somalia is agenda and therefore has less to do with religion. a failed country. Libya is a failed country.” Where was the inter- national community if not contributing to this failure? I think I would pose two questions to you. If in fact terrorism has nothing we have to be very clear on this. or little to do with religion, then how do you account for the very deeply religious rhetoric of terrorists groups? Do we simply say THOMAS FARR: Alright. That’s very good. I’d like each of that it’s a bunch of nutcases that are expropriating religion? And I you to respond to what Pasquale has said, but also, as you do also want to address this idea that religion that has a political agen- that, please begin our conversation on the relationship between da is somehow not a religion. I see the influence of France in your religious freedom and this phenomenon we’re talking about. thinking here. I’ll paraphrase de Tocqueville, a Frenchman who Talk about whether you’re aware of any evidence or examples came to America, who said, “Every religion has political opinions of where religious freedom might have a positive or a negative attached to it necessarily.” Can you respond to that? effect on this kind of religious violence. And I would just add that if Pasquale is correct, that the religion-related analysis of PASQUALE FERRARA: Well, religion can turn to violence this violence is not quite on point, then I would argue that reli- exactly as ideologies of any kind can turn to violence. I’m just gious freedom might be a less relevant antidote. Let’s begin with suggesting that we should concentrate on the violence. The role Monica. of the international community, including the religious commu- nity, is to work together in order to eradicate violence from the MONICA TOFT: I want to take up that point precisely, because face of the earth. You cannot find in any religions, if you read actually I’ve done a lot of work trying to differentiate between their texts, any particular incitation to radical violence or exter- motivations of insurgence. Does it matter what the insurgents are mination of other religions, except in some interpretations that fighting for? And it turns out that in some cases, they are fighting are contested within the same environment of those religions. So for religious beliefs. So it matters in terms of ideas, whom they’re my suggestion is to concentrate on violence. And the causes of targeting, how they’re targeting, whether they’re willing to settle violence can be different. It can also be a weird interpretation of the fight, and how they’re going to settle the fight. And it turns a religion. But there is no direct connection, in my opinion, be- out that religious actors are less willing to settle. They’re more tween a religion as such and violence. Actually, if you look deeply likely to target civilians because everybody is seen as an infidel or into any religion, there is some universal claim of the Golden an apostate if they have a very narrow conception. They tend to Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” wage more expansive fights compared to nationalist insurgents. So it is something that should be taken into account. We should Nationalists are very constrained. You asked about repression work on this part, I think. and violence. In these cases, violence begets violence.

I believe that, of course, violence is a problem, but the way you The sad news is that religious extremists are actually very hard deal with violence is a common endeavor of the international to deter. So the United States and its allies really need to think

BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 61 about containing and killing, because terrorists do not want to THOMAS FARR: Can religious freedom play a role in under- negotiate. They’re less likely to negotiate as the war goes on. Na- mining this violence? For example, if we are fortunate enough to tionalists are very different in that you can conciliate and accom- get rid of these terrorists by whatever means—and I support the modate them with greater rights and greater independence. means that you were talking about—in a post-conflict society in, say, Iraq and Syria, can religious freedom play a role in prevent- So in ideological terms, I think it’s important to understand ing ISIS from coming back? what’s motivating them, and then in practical terms, it’s impor- tant to understand the social base. Religious fighters are living MONICA TOFT: Yeah. We’re not economists—they’re the crème in the United Kingdom these days, and there are well-educated, de la crème of social scientists—but there is one law in political well-to-do middle class people—largely men, some women, science. We are not absolutely sure why it’s the case, but it turns some brides—unfortunately going into Syria as part of this out that democracies tend not to fight other democracies. There’s transnational network. And they really don’t have any local ties, something about the democratic system. With the case of religious which is very different from fights over national territories. freedom, you could see it as an indicator or a proxy for the pro- tection of rights within a state. So there does seem to be evidence In some cases, these fights that supports it. And one of the morph. The war in Chechnya arguments for why we’re seeing started as a very national fight “It is true that because of what ISIS this resurgence or increase in in the 1990s, but it became is doing, the Christian and Yazidi violations of religious freedom is more extremist. Moscow re- and other communities are being that states are going through the fused to negotiate. That is a intentionally exterminated in Iraq democratizing process. If you’re case where it did not have to and Syria. There’s been a big debate in a democracy, your likelihood of become Islamic, but it did by the United States over whether this is having a civil war is much re- the mid-2000s. Moscow had genocide; if it isn’t, I’m not quite sure duced. And then if you’re very negotiated with the Chechens autocratic, you’re not likely to what genocide is.” in the early 1900s, but later on have a civil war unless the state it refused to acknowledge that loses the capacity to keep it the Chechens had grievances Thomas Farr back. This is what’s happened in that could be dealt with. So the Arab Middle East. from 1994 to 1996 they fought a nationalist war, and then from 1996 to 1999 there was this It’s those in-between states that are transitioning to democracy peace when Russia was actually supposed to help rebuild the re- that are much more likely to have large-scale violence, protests, public. But they didn’t. and in some cases civil war. You could make the argument that one of the reasons why we’re seeing religious freedom being vio- That’s when you started seeing the transnational movement. lated and religious adherence being targeted is that these Mus- There were not a ton of fighters, but they did start influencing lim-majority societies are actually going through this democra- the play of politics. What ended up happening is that all the tization process. That’s why you’re seeing a religious tinge much moderate players—the political and religious players in Chech- more today than in any other periods of time. nya—fell out of the political arena or were killed, one by one. First there was Dzhokhar Dudayev, who was killed. He was THOMAS FARR: Very good. Sue, do you want to respond to eventually replaced by Doku Umarov. Their beards just got lon- Pasquale but also to the question of religious freedom? ger as they really took on a religious tint. You can actually see this transformation in pictures. SUE BREEZE: Absolutely. The way that I look at this is that nobody becomes a terrorist from a standing start. It’s a gradual The post-1999 war was actually fought differently from the first process of radicalization. If you don’t step in until you’ve got the 1994 war, and we still have a conflict happening now. So I think violence, then you’ve missed a lot of the intervening stages. it’s very important to be looking at the kind of violence, the ideas behind it, and how it influences the structure of the fight that’s You talked about my wide-ranging portfolio, but you didn’t men- actually happening on the battleground. tion the fact that I also cover anti-Semitism and post-Holocaust

62 BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 issues. This means I draw parallels a bit between the Holocaust and other genocides. There are 10 steps toward genocide in aca- demic research. The first step toward genocide is labeling some- body as different, as the “other.” It starts with rejecting people because they’re different from you. It then moves toward deny- ing their rights and their humanity. You must drive groups apart before you get to violence. So I think it’s really important to step in early. When you’re looking at people who start off being radicalized, they often start with believing in the so-called Jewish conspiracy. Then they develop hostilities toward the West and fundamental liberal values. Finally, they become more extreme in their views.

Again, focusing on the very practical, in the United Kingdom we’ve been looking at where multiculturalism and the integra- tion versus assimilation of different communities still need some work. It’s something that we’re still learning how to do, and we’re looking at people who’ve been radicalized. Often, they come from sectors of our communities that are not well-integrated, where maybe people go to a single-faith school and don’t mix very much with people from other communities. The U.K. government has therefore been looking at ways of tackling that in terms of school Nilay Saiya requirements and the ways of bringing people from different communities together at a young age. So don’t just focus on the others. At that point, we would draw the line. The United King- violence. Go right back to the beginning and look at education. dom does have a strong body of law to criminalize hate speech Education is really, really key. Looking at the link with religious and hate crime. freedom, if you are teaching people about tolerance and nondis- crimination, about the right to have a faith, to share it with others, THOMAS FARR: All right. That’s a very important issue. Sup- to change your faith, or to have no faith, then it’s much less likely pose I preach in my church that people who don’t agree with me that extremist views are going to take hold. are going to go to hell. This issue has been there for a long time; I didn’t just cook it up. Is that hate speech? THOMAS FARR: Would you add the right to change your re- ligion? There are all these other things associated with freedom SUE BREEZE: I think it depends on what sort of response of religion. There’s the right to criticize other religions publicly; you’re proposing. If you’re proposing to go out and kill them, the right to criticize your own religion publicly; the right to say then that would count as hate speech. If you’re proposing to whatever you want to say about religion publicly; or the right to share your faith with them in such a way that you encourage take your own religious beliefs into the public life of the nation. them to want to join your faith because it’s a wonderful thing, That could arguably make radicalization worse, but it’s part of then that’s not hate speech. religious freedom. THOMAS FARR: It might not work very well. But you’re not SUE BREEZE: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, the right to religion is going to stop people from saying that as long as it isn’t directly very closely bound up with freedom of expression. I spoke earlier related to violent action? about empowering voices. If you’re shutting religion out of the public sphere, you shut out those very voices that we want to SUE BREEZE: Absolutely not. amplify. THOMAS FARR: Okay. Nilay, we’re really in your wheelhouse But again, as you said earlier, there are limits. There is the require- here, so let’s hear you talk about the issue of religious freedom ment to behave responsibly and not advocate violence against and violent terrorism.

BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 63 NILAY SAIYA: Sure. In a recent project, I teamed up with a terrorist attacks. And what’s interesting about this finding is that computer scientist to look at this question specifically, and what when religious restrictions are low, the values of the other vari- we did is we created a data set that included every identifiable act ables had no effect. What this suggests is that there is a causal of religious terrorism since 2001. In addition to each country’s relationship here between a lack of religious restrictions and reli- religious freedom score, we also included other variables that giously motivated terrorism. might account for alternative theories of terrorism. We included poverty, GDP per capita, number of minority religions, institu- The third thing we found is that the algorithm also predicted tional democracy, regime durability, and a number of other vari- with 95 percent accuracy that populous countries with high lev- ables that might explain why terrorism occurs. We analyzed this els of religious restrictions would experience religious terrorist data set using some novel computer science techniques. What attacks. But we’re not suggesting here a mechanical relationship we found after we did the analysis were four interesting things. between religious restrictions and religious terrorism. There are cases where highly restrictive countries have been able to effec- First, the most important variable in predicting the onset of re- tively thwart religious terrorism, and there are also cases where ligious terrorism is a government’s restriction of religion. In fact, religiously free countries have experienced religious terrorism. this variable was more than twice as important as the next most But those cases are very few and far between, generally speaking. important variable in the data set, which is a country’s geograph- ic size. The fourth finding is that religious restrictions often interact with a number of other variables in complex ways to predict the The second important finding is that the algorithm that we cre- onset of religious terrorism. So the most troubling combination ated predicted with 99 percent accuracy that countries with low that we found after analyzing the data is that countries that have levels of religious restrictions would not experience any religious high levels of religious restrictions, large populations, and un-

Pasquale Ferrara

64 BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 stable political regimes are the most likely to experience religious vance the cause of peaceful cooperation and solve conflict. Re- terrorist attacks. ligious engagement means that you have to be in the field; you have to open this conversation on equal footing; you have to be So on the whole, the evidence seems to be clear: Religious re- committed; you have to follow. It’s not just about monitoring, strictions serve as a necessary, if not always sufficient, cause of assessing, and reporting. It’s much more demanding. I think that religious terrorism. is the new frontier of religious freedom, because it’s a more ar- ticulated and more comprehensive approach. THOMAS FARR: Terrific. Does the opposite also hold true? That is to say, if one were successful in advancing religious free- THOMAS FARR: Well, religious engagement is precisely what dom in a culture, would it have the effect of undermining reli- I’d argue we should be doing with respect to religious freedom. gion-related terrorism? Is that a fair inference? You really raised an important point. Let’s go to the audience.

NILAY SAIYA: I think it would be fair to say that over the long JIM WALLACE: My name is Jim Wallace of Boston University. term. This is not something that happens overnight. And in fact, Monica, in the past, you have written about religion as a proxy as Monica mentioned, as countries in situations of violent extremism. are transitioning, that leaves them Pasquale used the term the “weap- open to these kinds of attacks a lot of “What’s striking is that prior onization” of religion. Do you see times. So over the long term, yes, but to the 1970s, there were few religion increasingly being a causal probably not overnight. factor, or is it still in many situations religiously inspired civil wars. a proxy factor? THOMAS FARR: Okay. Pasquale? They just didn’t exist. They Then we’re going to go to the audi- were based on communism or MONICA TOFT: Well, religion it- ence. ethnicity, like Rwanda. Not all self is never a causal factor. It’s hu- violence that we’re witnessing mans who invoke interpretations PASQUALE FERRARA: I have a today is religiously inspired. of religious faith—that’s the causal quick reaction on the issue of sys- Some of it is still based on good factor—and then they bring it into tematic violence and genocide. Of old-fashioned nationalism, and the political arena. I think it’s fair to course this is a process, but there is some of it is still based on say that different texts and different one example that really puzzled me: interpretations are instrumentalized the case of the genocide in Rwan- class-related issues, like Nepal.” for people to achieve political ob- da. You have Tutsi and Hutu, both jectives. And what’s striking is that Catholics, killing each other. So Monica Toft prior to the 1970s, there were few there must be some other reason be- religiously inspired civil wars. They yond religion there. just didn’t exist. They were based on communism or ethnicity, like Rwanda. Not all violence that The second point that I would like to make, which is quite inter- we’re witnessing today is religiously inspired. Some of it is still esting from a European point of view, is that racism, homopho- based on good old-fashioned nationalism, and some of it is still bia, and hate speech are prosecuted as crimes now in Europe, but based on class-related issues, like Nepal. at the same time offending religions is not a crime. How can we conceptualize that in the systematic framework of human rights So in the case of religion and its “weaponization” as a proxy, I’d and liberties? come back to humans, the actors within the public space who have particular interpretations of religion and manipulate it for In regard to religious freedom and violence, I think that there is political objectives. This happens often, but not always. Com- one outstanding initiative that was taken recently by the State munal violence is usually just spontaneous. It erupts. But the Department: the creation of the Office for Religious Engage- large scale, sustained kind of violence is usually a political fight. ment. I think it is moving in the right direction. It is not only You’ve got elites with different interpretations trying to outbid about religious freedom. In my opinion, religious freedom does one another and trying to prevail within the political setting that not do enough in international political discourse today to ad- they’re operating.

BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 65 THOMAS FARR: Next question, please. ic Renaissance Party and proclaimed it to be a terrorist organiza- tion. The effect of this ban on a party which espouses moderate WALTER GLAZER: Hi. I’m Walter Grazer and I teach a course Islam will have an extremely radicalizing effect on the general here at Georgetown. I’m formerly with the United States Confer- situation in Tajikistan. What specific actions can the United ence of Catholic Bishops. When people are more desperate and States take to prevent the situation in Tajikistan from devolving oppressed, it would seem to me that it’d be logical to fall back into a situation like the one that now exists in Syria? on what’s most existentially important, like religion. Obviously it could be distorted, but it seems natural to fall back on that. THOMAS FARR: Thank you. Monica, do you want to answer that question? What is the role of regional actors in the relationship between religion and violence? I’m thinking about Pakistan’s influence on MONICA TOFT: It’s a great question. I think that the U.S. the Taliban, Qatar’s and Saudi Arabia’s influence on the Syrian government needs to take Tajik officials aside and say, “You’re go- conflict, Iran’s influence, and so forth. There are bigger national ing to have a situation like that in Syria.” Because once you start political interests operating here. How much of it is manipulated isolating groups, people get frustrated and they feel as if there are by regional actors? It looks like some of the ISIS leaders are for- no more alternatives. They’re not going to be loyal. They can’t mer Baathists. I don’t think their motive is very religious, but it’s exit. So what they’re going to do is voice their frustration, and a great way to frame it. They think to themselves, “I’m in an area they may end up voicing it through violence. where religion is important, so I need a justification for terrible actions.” Unfortunately, once a state has a civil war, it’s more likely to have another civil war, because organizational structures are still PASQUALE FERRARA: The case of Pakistan is particularly tell- in place decades later. People still know how to fight; it’s not ing, because Pakistan was born with both a strong Islamic iden- a pretty picture. So I think the United States and others need tity and a national one. Now, what we’re witnessing in Pakistan to impress upon the Tajik government that this is going to be is that there is still Islam, but a sort of transnational Islam. The extraordinarily expensive. The probability of another civil war Pakistani government, the Pakistani authorities, and not even coming is greater given the country’s history, and they’re prob- religious authorities in Pakistan have complete control of that. ably going to face more extremists. This is what happened in And this is a problem. But it also has to do with globalization. Chechnya. It did not have to get as extreme as it did, but it did Religions tend to become more global. They have influence out- because of the lack of negotiation. side of the scope of the Westphalian state. The other case that actually might be more similar is Algeria. So it is happening, and how you deal with that has much more Algeria wouldn’t allow the Islamic Party to come into power af- to do with interpretations of Islam, as Monica said. This can ter they’ve been democratically elected into power. Then it faced come from religious authorities. So to an extent, imams have the civil war and massive killing. authority to foster the right interpretation of Islam in this case and prevent it from being instrumentalized. THOMAS FARR: All right. Let’s get a couple more questions.

THOMAS FARR: All right. We’re going to go to the gentlemen LAUREN HOMER: Thank you. I’m Lauren Homer. I’m an in the back. I’m trying to get some people who have not had a international human rights lawyer working on religious free- chance to ask a question. Then we’ll get to others as well. dom. I want to make a couple of observations and then ask a question. We’ve heard a lot about radical, violent religion ARKADY DUBNOV: [Speaking through a translator] Thank arising in a context of persecution, but I want to posit that it you. I have worked for over 20 years in Central Asia, and I have doesn’t arise in a context of persecution. It starts with an idea. mostly been occupied with studying the relationship between If you look at Russia, Karl Marx was a German. If you look Islam and official policies. I’d like to turn to ask Monica about at Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden was a Saudi. So you have her comment on Tajikistan, which she compared to the situation somebody who has this idea to violently overthrow the exist- in Sudan. I think today one can actually say that in Tajikistan the ing government and impose a totalitarian regime on everybody situation is like the one we observed in Syria three or four years that’s there, and they kill or suppress everybody who doesn’t ago. On September 29, the Tajik government banned the Islam- agree with them. So naturally the government that is in charge

66 BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 Monica Toft with a member of the audience

is going to try to repress them, because they want to overthrow THOMAS FARR: Okay. Thank you, Lauren. The gentleman in the government. the back has a question.

Once this idea has appeared, there’s a contagion phenomenon. KISHAN MANOCHA: Thank you. My name is Kishan Mano- People who are feeling unhappy for various reasons, including cha and I work for the Organization for Security and Co-operation people in countries with very liberal religious freedom and civil in Europe on religious freedom issues. Clearly there’s been atten- society laws, want to join in. Right now we have a globalization tion given to the issues under discussion in a range of fora. What of radical Islam, for example. That’s certainly the case in Syria, tends to emerge after the analysis and the discussion is the framing but it didn’t start in Syria. These are ideas that came from some- of various strategies and measures, including those addressed to where else. religious leaders. They often amount to a wish list of everything under the sun. People ask, “Wouldn’t it be wonderful if religious If the central issue is the spread of these ideas, and if 30,000 to leaders could actually re-invent and re-create their religion so that 50,000 fighters in Syria and Iraq believe in them—of course, it preached peace, brotherhood, happiness, and well-being for all?” there are many more around the world—how do we reach them? Is it possible to get them to change their minds? Should The serious point I’m trying to make is those calls are entirely we respond through an alternative religious philosophy? We can understandable and appropriate. But how reasonable are they? round them up, kill them, and try them for their crimes, but the How practical are they? More importantly, what are we learning ideas are still out there. So how do we combat them, and can we from efforts to engage religious leaders on both sides of the At- do it through laws on religious freedom? Or do we have to do lantic that will help us address the issues that we’ve been discuss- something else? ing this afternoon? Time is passing; this has been in the ether for the past decade. What insights have we learned in this respect?

BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 67 What have we done well? What haven’t we done well? And the that religiously restrictive environments facilitate radical political big question is: Who is the “we” that should be doing this? theologies by stifling open debate and discussion and by closing off the channels for discourse. Pluralism and diversity of ideas do THOMAS FARR: Okay. Let’s end with that. That’s a wonderful not flourish like they do in religiously free settings. practical question. Why don’t we start with you, Pasquale, and then we’ll give our closing remarks in the course of answering I also want to close by saying one thing about international these questions. forms of violence. We’ve been talking a lot about domestic forms of violence, but scholars like Monica Toft, Dan Phil- PASQUALE FERRARA: I have some thoughts on ISIS and pott, Timothy Shah, Brian Grim, and Roger Finke have been how to defeat it. Of course, there are political options on the making a case for several years now that religious restrictions table that are now being evaluated among the capitals, not only are tied to domestic forms of religious violence, including civil in Europe but also here in Washington and in Moscow. But I wars, domestic terrorism, and violent religious persecution. I think that one element is sometimes missing: the fact that ISIS, think you can also make a case that these forms of religious despite the fact that it has presented itself as a state—by the way, restrictions also give rise to transnational forms of violence, this is a Western category; it’s not a caliphate in this case, but including international religious terrorism and even conflict a state—and the fact that ISIS has presented itself as a unitary between states. So I think that’s something that needs to be actor hides the fact that it is a galaxy of groups that have been looked at a little bit further. merging over time. Thanks to external intervention, it also Until recently, scholars of con- has financial support from sev- flict have tended to ignore the eral international actors. For “Religious engagement means that you importance of religious free- instance, there are Al-Qaeda- have to be in the field; you have to open dom on conflict, but we can’t affiliated groups in Syria that this conversation on equal footing; you do that anymore. Religion are not aligned with ISIS. They have to be committed; you have to remains an important source are fighting their own battle. follow. It’s not just about monitoring, of one’s identity, and religion’s These are things that need to assessing, and reporting. It’s much more influence on politics and soci- be considered in terms of com- demanding.” ety is increasing. At the same plexity. time, we know from reports by Pasquale Ferrara the Pew Research Center that And then there are always these religious hostilities and govern- fundamental questions about ment restrictions on religion the causes of religious violence, are also increasing. This does which are often justified by religious pretext, I would say. Before not bode well for the future of religious violence, either domestic he became famous, Osama bin Laden had a political agenda, or international. which was to get rid of the Americans from the Gulf, because they were crusaders occupying the holy land of the prophet. THOMAS FARR: Can you end with a happy thought, Sue? Maybe we need to go a little bit deeper into this international [Laughter] crisis to discover that there is a layer that we do not consider much apart from religious pretext. This level of analysis could be SUE BREEZE: Yeah. I just want to build on our discussion at least the beginning of the answer. about the spread of ideas. There are societies that teach children from the beginning that one religion is superior to others, or that THOMAS FARR: Thank you very much. Nilay, go ahead. one religion is inferior. Again, going back to the Holocaust, the Nazis didn’t kill all the Jews across Europe by themselves. There NILAY SAIYA: So there is a question about ideas and whether was a very active facilitation of what they did because of the anti- or not it’s possible to change the minds of radicals. My answer Semitism that was prevalent across Europe at that time. It wasn’t would be that it’s probably not possible. But the real question being checked. So we need to learn the lessons of the Holocaust is: Why is it that in some places a lot of people are attracted to for our own societies and look at the societies that are fertile these ideas, whereas in other places they’re not? I would argue ground for extremists at the moment.

68 BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 Kishan asked about the importance of religious leaders. I think THOMAS FARR: Great. Alright, Monica, bring us home. we need to be careful of putting too much emphasis on religious leaders. Tom is being controversial in saying we’ve achieved very MONICA TOFT: Okay. I do think we are learning. I think little with our religious freedom policy. That’s because it’s so diffi- we’ve learned that this is not necessarily an American initia- cult. It’s not something that governments can solve by themselves. tive. It’s grown over the past 17 years, though not as forcefully It’s not something that religious leaders can solve by themselves. and fully as Tom would like. I just joined an initiative with We need a comprehensive approach from governments to take ac- Baroness Elizabeth Berridge in the House of Lords, which is an tion against discrimination, to ensure children are taught from the amazing project. I joined onto it because it’s bringing together very youngest age about religious freedom, and to make sure that the 53 nations of the Commonwealth, including autocracies, equality and non-discrimination are included in legislation and in monarchies, parliaments, and democracies. The idea is to talk courts. We need an independent judiciary. We need religious lead- and to learn from one another, because what happened in the ers to also promote these ideals. It’s an enormous task. first iteration of this is we didn’t actually understand who our interlocutors were and what language they were using. I want to end with two quick points. The whole point of this discussion is transatlantic dialogue. The premise is that there is Now we’re broadening our scope beyond the transatlantic relation- a slight difference between the United States and Europe which ship. We are thinking about the different resources we can use to prevents us from working effectively together. I just want to chal- engage other people. As Peter Berger said this morning, we are try- lenge that, because I think we do work very well together, and ing to have that secular conversation about common values. I think when I sit down and talk to U.S. counterparts, we don’t have a that this particular initiative might help to do that, because you have fundamental disagreement about what we’re trying to achieve. 53 different nations with very different histories coming together. It’s just an enormous task. THOMAS FARR: Wonderful. Thank you. This has been a won- I have one last point about building alliances and the idea of derful panel with an extraordinary examination of one of the freedom of religion or belief. In Europe and the West, we live in biggest problems that faces the world today. As I said, there’s no a world that is essentially secular and that resents the influence formula to answer this question, but I think we have shed a lot of religion. If you’re looking at building alliances and speaking of light on one of the most serious problems that the world faces to people in a language that they understand and that is non- today: the relationship between religion and violence, whatever alienating, then the right to have no religion, whatever belief that happens to be, and the possibility that true religious free- means, is actually a very valid concept. I think we need to build dom might have an ameliorating effect on religion-related vio- alliances with as many people as we can. lence. Join me now in thanking our panelists. [Applause]

BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 69 Keynote Address: U.S. Religious Freedom Policy: What Lessons Should Other Western Democracies Learn from It?

THOMAS FARR: We’ve held a lot of conferences in this room has, I’m happy to say, now been reauthorized by Congress. I over the last five years, and I have never seen so many people at don’t know if the president has signed the bill, but after a rather the end of the day. I think I know why. We have now come to the contentious debate over the commission—which is vital to this crux of the day. We spent much of the conference discussing and effort—yesterday it was reauthorized by both houses. The com- debating the issues surrounding international religious freedom mission’s job is to make policy recommendations to the presi- policy: what it means, whether it’s a good idea, and if so, how dent, to Congress, and to the secretary of state, and as such it is Western democracies can cooperate in opposing religious perse- very important to this effort. cution and promoting religious freedom. I am deeply honored to introduce to you the man who heads the American effort to But the man I am going to introduce to you is literally where the advance international religious freedom: Ambassador-at-Large buck stops. He is the one who was confirmed by the Senate as David Saperstein. the U.S. official charged with carrying out U.S. policy. He is the one who travels the world officially representing the government David is the fourth person to hold this vitally important posi- and people of the United States of America to defend those per- tion, which was created by a law that has been mentioned several secuted for their religious beliefs and to advance the habits and times today—the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. institutions of religious freedom. IRFA requires the government of the United States to advance religious freedom as a part of our foreign policy. The ambassador Ambassador Saperstein was confirmed by the Senate in Decem- and his office at the State Department are the executive agents of ber of last year and was sworn in and assumed his duties on that policy. The buck, as it were, stops there. January 6 of this year. Prior to becoming ambassador, he served for 40 years as the director of the Religious Action Center of Now, others are clearly important to this policy, especially the Reform Judaism, overseeing national social justice programming U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom—which for the largest segment of American Jewry. A rabbi and an attor-

70 BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 ney for 35 years, Ambassador Saperstein taught seminars in First First, I want to share a little bit of a reflection on the eight Amendment church-state law and in Jewish law at Georgetown months that I’ve been working at the State Department, includ- University Law Center. So he is very much at home here. ing the work of our office and our interaction with the rest of the department. Second, I’ll talk about the general architecture In 1999, David Saperstein was elected by his peers as the first of the concerns about religious freedom that we have across the chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Free- globe. And finally, I want to talk about the lessons that we can dom, and this is where I had the honor of meeting him. I quickly learn from each other in this transatlantic alliance—some of the came to have a deep respect and affection for this man. He is similarities, some of the differences, and whether those differ- savvy, he is intelligent, he is persuasive, and as you’re going to ences are good or counterproductive. So let’s go through it to- see, he is courageous. Most important of all, he is a man of his gether. A lot of these themes have been picked up during a day word. I was proud to support him for the position in which he of fascinating and invaluable conversations. now serves with such distinction and I’m honored to call him “friend.” Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the U.S. Ambas- First, like so many of you in this room, I spent a good part of sador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom, the Honor- my time building partnerships with other nations to advance able David Saperstein. [Applause] religious freedom together, as these global challenges require a global response. And thanks to the good work of my Canadian DAVID SAPERSTEIN: Tom, counterpart, Ambassador An- you know it’s mutual. I’ve had drew Bennett, we have forged the pleasure of being able to ac- “We need to find ways to help those the Inter-Governmental Con- knowledge that publicly before civil society and religious groups without tact Group for Freedom of and I do so again today. It is Religion or Belief—executive rare to find someone who com- delegitimizing them through our very branch folks who share com- bines relentlessness and grace as embrace. I think it’s one of the central mon concerns—which brings foreign policy challenges that we face.” well as Tom does and I deeply together like-minded nations appreciate it. to devise strategies to promote David Saperstein and protect religious freedom I really want to thank you for for all, to look for areas of coor- this invitation. Before I came dination and cooperation, and on, Tom said, “You know, let’s agree that we’re going to look for to develop reinforcing strategies and tactics. This is parallel to an opportunity for you to really have a chance to speak at the the creation of the parliamentary network familiar to you, which center about the core issues of your work.” This was the forum in brings together parliamentarians from across the globe and from which we decided to do it. different political and religious backgrounds.

What a fascinating forum. First of all, it’s a great mix of people in These action-oriented fora represent new opportunities to push attendance and on the stage. This is really remarkable. Some of this fundamental freedom forward. Both of these vital interna- these folks gathered here are folks from around the globe whom tional undertakings draw from the global community, from the I’ve had the opportunity to work with over many years, but more Northern Hemisphere and the Southern Hemisphere, from ev- intensively now that I hold the position of ambassador-at-large ery populated continent and from countries of diverse religious for international religious freedom. And the institutions that are populations, with full cognizance that their effectiveness is going hosting and co-sponsoring this event are kind of the “who’s who” to depend on getting beyond just the transatlantic alliance that in the realm of religious freedom, and that is a great honor for me cares so deeply about these issues. as well. And certainly I am deeply indebted to the Berkley Center for the contribution you’ve made to this cause, as well as to almost Second, allow me to comment on how reassuring the extensive every one of the entities that is co-sponsoring this vital work. support that I’ve received from the secretary and from the de- partment has been. Many of you were there when I spoke at my The work in front of us, those of us who care about religious confirmation hearing and again at my swearing-in on the themes freedom, is daunting. Let me deal with three different rubrics that I laid out as being my priorities. They’ve been realized be- of issues. cause of the support that I’ve had from the State Department.

BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 71 The State Department has significantly increased the staff of our ment of our special adviser for religious minorities in the Near office, allowing us to expand our ongoing work, to devote staff East and South and Central Asia, Special Adviser Knox Thames. to thematic issues like the relationship of religious freedom and He’s the highly respected former director of policy and research countering violent extremism, the negative effects of blasphemy at the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, and apostasy laws on religious freedom, and the intersection of who will build on our existing efforts to address the plight of women’s equality and religious freedom. these minorities. I’ve talked frequently about what it would take to allow the displaced minority communities to return to their What’s more, the secretary’s staff and the so-called “seventh home communities. Knox Thames will focus on coordinating floor,” where much of the power at the State Department resides, with government-wide efforts in this regard. As part of our ongo- simply could not have been more supportive in assisting our ing work, he and other colleagues at the State Department are work on matters big and small. They’re always accessible. And continuing to build an extensive network of contacts wherever my presence at most regular, ongoing senior staff meetings at the religious groups face oppression. This is a major part of what we State Department has guaranteed that our concerns and efforts do—building a network of contacts on the ground in countries are integrated into the broader agenda of the State Department. across the globe: contacts with their families, their friends, and their communities here in the United States as well. Third, we have greatly strengthened our programmatic work. I mention this because it’s an often overlooked part of a vital as- And I think it is not a secret to many in this room that our work pect of our work. We think mostly about the policy and public was extraordinarily beneficial to efforts to assist the minorities in education work that we do, but through the Human Rights and the Middle East in the face of the scourge of ISIL, whether it was Democracy Fund and other funding sources at the department, the Yazidis from the first days on Mount Sinjar or the Assyrian the department increasingly supports an array of programs that Christian communities on the Khabur River. I cite both of these directly impact religious freedom. First, these programs address in the context of the broader impact of the State Department’s intolerance; second, they increase public awareness of religious work that saved a countless number of lives, yet knowing full freedom issues; third, they train civil society and government of- well of the video that is circulating today of the killing of Assyr- ficials on the legal and policy protections for religious freedom; ian Christian captives. They were captured at the very beginning fourth, they strengthen the capacity of religious leaders to pro- of ISIL’s incursion into the area and have been held for ransom mote faith-based cooperation across religious and sectarian lines ever since, according to the stories. Too many Yazidis, Mandae- on behalf of religious freedom or on behalf of other causes that we ans, Christians, and others have suffered terribly and continue share in common, like social services; fifth, they empower religious to suffer terribly, day in and day out, because of ISIL’s actions. minorities to participate in political processes; and sixth, they help combat religiously motivated discrimination and violence. Finally, we had the support of the government in integrating our work into the ongoing work at the State Department. This was I’m going to come back to this because many of the countries already started by Shaun Casey’s remarkable efforts in our Office that are represented in this room have similar kinds of programs, of Religion and Global Affairs and continues in our work on but most people don’t know about them. The reason for this is religious freedom now: the interaction of religious freedom with that most governments don’t talk about them. The very act of development, democracy building, conflict resolution, counter- acknowledging what governments do in those countries could be terrorism, and combating violent extremism. These interactions counterproductive to the very people that we are trying to help, are all now incorporated into the ongoing work of the State De- because where these programs are often needed most are some of partment in a way that wasn’t true even a couple of years ago. the areas most dangerous to religious freedom. So it is kind of a There’s been a profound change, a growing openness. We see catch-22. Nonetheless, I’m going to come back to this topic to this in other governments across the globe. But there are many develop a recommendation. governments that share our concern for religious freedom that don’t yet understand the connections of religious freedom with By the way, my discussion of these funds doesn’t take into account many of these other vital priorities that we share. And we shall the millions of dollars spent on issues like the rule of law and de- return to that later in the discussion. mocracy building that benefit all efforts supporting human rights and religious freedom which we care about. And above all, I’m The support of President Obama and Secretary Kerry, the in- extremely proud that the administration supported the appoint- creased staffing at our office, the appointment of Knox, the

72 BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 Ambassador David Saperstein integration of our work with other departments, the ongoing Through our annual report and our broader work, we give a voice programs that we have, and our new international partners—all to all those throughout the world seeking to live their lives in accor- these demonstrate the importance the administration places on dance with their own consciences and religious beliefs. We strive to promoting international religious freedom. put a human face on this incredibly important human rights issue that touches so many lives and remains so central to the identity of Now we must continue to expand our focus on religious free- people across the globe, including the American people. dom around the world for the obvious reasons. In too many countries religious freedom faces daunting, alarming, and The obstacles to religious freedom come in several different ru- growing challenges. These are countries where members of re- brics, almost all of which were discussed earlier. Let me just men- ligious minorities contributed for so long to their own societ- tion them. ies—often decades, centuries, or millennia. We have witnessed an unprecedented crisis as people are driven out of their his- The violence committed by terrorist groups and non-state ac- toric homelands at an escalating rate. This is an area ripe for tors is an alarmingly escalating phenomenon. We’ve seen terrible transatlantic cooperation. The Inter-Governmental Contact things from ISIL: the devastation to the Yazidi community, the Group for Freedom of Religion or Belief and the International devastation to historic Christian communities, and the devasta- Panel of Parliamentarians for Freedom of Religion or Belief tion to the other minority communities in Iraq and Syria. Reli- are unprecedented and hopeful signs of growing cooperation. gious minorities are being driven out. They are being killed and However, we must ensure that these groups do not view just butchered. They are being enslaved and raped. They are being meeting as a victory, but that they look for ways to concretely forced into marriages and forced into conversions. advance religious freedom or belief for all, wherever it is chal- lenged. These new networks couldn’t be more timely, as the When we turn the focus from the Near East to Africa, we see challenges continue to grow. Boko Haram having the same kind of impact: killing thousands

BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 73 of people in indiscriminate acts of violence and deliberately at- concerned, for instance, about the continued imprisonment of tacking Christians and Muslims who oppose its radical ideology. Mauritanian blogger Mohamed Cheikh Ould M’Kheitir, who It has subjected people of Nigeria, Cameroon, Chad, and Niger was sentenced to death in December 2014 for apostasy after to unspeakable acts of terrorism, sexual violence, abductions, hu- publishing an article that some deemed critical of the Prophet man loss, and destruction, including fatal attacks on churches Muhammad. In another case from March 2015, Farkhunda and mosques, often killing worshippers during religious services Malikzada was beaten to death by a mob of men in Kabul in or immediately on the way out. It is done with intent, and it is a broad daylight in front of a mosque after they falsely accused devastating development. her of blasphemy. Even when there are no blasphemy laws ex- plicitly on the books, accusations of blasphemy can still lead to I also should point out in a second category the existing laws deadly societal violence. on blasphemy and apostasy. There isn’t a consensus in this room or in the transatlantic partnership of exactly how our The existence of these laws in Pakistan and elsewhere in the concerns in these areas ought to be implemented. Blasphemy world helps create a culture of impunity that facilitates such vio- laws and apostasy laws, which around the world are used to lence, even when the violence is actually a result of individuals oppress those whose conscientious religious beliefs happen to seeking to settle personal vendettas. In that context I know you offend the majority, are frequently used to repress dissent, to all remember the brutal killing of a young Christian couple who harass political opponents, and to settle personal vendettas. worked at a brick kiln in Punjab, Pakistan. The United States uniformly opposes such laws, and we believe they are inconsistent with international human rights and fun- The culture of impunity can make it nearly impossible to defend damental freedoms. We will continue to call for their repeal in blasphemy cases in the courts, as evidenced by the May 2014 any country in which they remain on the books. We remain killing by unknown gunmen of Rashid Rehman, a prominent

Tom Getman talks with Rollin A. Van Broekhoven after the conference

74 BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 human rights attorney who had been repeatedly threatened for harassment for simply exercising their faith. As a result, believ- defending a blasphemy case but had been unable to obtain pro- ers are unable or refuse to register with their government or to tection from the police. identify with an unregistered religion or with no religion at all.

There’s also the issue of repressing religious freedom in the In North Korea, religious freedom does not exist in practice. The name of combating terrorism in a number of countries. The UN Commission of Inquiry report concluded that there was al- challenge of confronting terrorism and violent extremism from most a complete denial by the government of the right of free- groups claiming religious sanction for their actions has been dom of religion. Countries like Saudi Arabia completely deny responded to by broadly cracking down on religious groups any religious group other than Muslims the right to practice its and on non-violent religious activities, and by imposing broad faith openly. In the Maldives, only Sunni Muslims can worship restrictions on religious life. For instance, the government of openly. Russia continues to use vaguely formulated anti-extremism laws to justify arrests, raids on homes and places of worship, And other countries enforce rules and regulations that restrict and the confiscation or banning of religious literature of mi- individuals’ ability to practice their religion based on age or nority religious groups, in- gender. Tajikistan remains the cluding Muslims and Chris- sole country in the world that tians not affiliated with the “I think it’s in our strong interest to bans people under the age of Russian Orthodox Church. work with like-minded people in 18 from participating in public In Ukraine, authorities in other countries across the globe to religious activities. It also has Russian-occupied Crimea sub- make progress on religious freedom restrictions on women as well. jected members of religious in the European Union and in other minorities to a campaign of democratic countries. We need to show In countries like Vietnam, regu- systematic discrimination and lations require religious groups harassment. In Central Asia, them that you cannot successfully to undergo an onerous and we see several governments counter violent extremism or terrorism, somewhat arbitrary registration cracking down on peaceful have a stable democracy, or have real process in order to legally op- religious activities under the conflict resolution if a erate. Even with such registra- pretext of fighting religious country is going to descend into tion, groups must still obtain extremism. In Uzbekistan, the sectarian violence…” specific approval for almost all government broadly banned activities: clergy appointments, Islamic groups, categorizing David Saperstein religious events, building reno- them as extremists without vations, and the establishments any reference to violent activi- of seminaries or religion classes. ties and detaining members of these banned groups. Accord- Absent such approvals, persons undertaking these activities are ing to family members, some have died while in custody. And subject to harassment, arrest, or detention. recently in Tajikistan, the largest opposition party—the Mus- lim Party—has now been banned as well. Uighur Muslims in In China, only the religious groups belonging to the five state- China face increased controls on peaceful religious expression sanctioned patriotic religious associations are permitted to register and practice, including bans of wearing beards and veils and with the government and legally hold worship services. Authorities interferences with Ramadan fasting. In the name of combating have often pressured unaffiliated religious groups, including Falun separatism, Tibetan Buddhists face government interference in Gong, to join the patriotic associations, and they used a variety of the selection of lamas, their spiritual leaders. Monasteries face means, including detention, to punish members of unregistered an increase in government management as part of such mea- religious or spiritual groups. Chinese human rights lawyers hired sures. to defend these vulnerable groups face additional restrictions. One such lawyer, Zhang Kai, is under detention in an unknown loca- And then we have all kinds of repressive rules and regulations. tion. He faces charges of endangering national security and dis- Across the globe, repressive governments subject their citizens turbing public order due to his peaceful advocacy and representa- to violence, detention, discrimination, undue monitoring, and tion of Christians in Wenzhou Province, where crosses are being

BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 75 taken down in large numbers, as well as his representation of other I will point out that we sharpened the focus of our work as effec- faith groups. We have repeatedly called on China to release him tively as we’ve done due in no small measure to the first ambassa- and other church leaders and activists detained in this area. Chi- dor for religious freedom, Bob Seiple, and the first director of the nese authorities detained Zhang Kai just before he was scheduled IRFA office, the remarkable Tom Farr, who sits by my side here. to meet with me on my trip last month to China. Second, we are recognizing the importance of highlighting abus- Finally, there is societal violence and discrimination. In Western es. The report does that through the “Countries of Particular Europe, we see a rise in anti-Semitism and Islamophobia and Concern” (CPC) mechanism. Currently there are nine countries the violent targeting of Jews and Muslims. In Burma, some of that are designated as CPCs. We view the designation as a vital the nationalist Buddhist networks that have denigrated Mus- tool to help force improvements when other diplomatic initia- lims—most particularly the Rohingya, as well as Christians and tives have not succeeded. Our religious freedom engagement Hindus—are calling for national boycotts of Muslim-owned is multifaceted, and the CPC designation is one arrow in our businesses and cautioning Buddhists against interacting with quiver. Muslims. All of this continues today. Another is the report itself. It shines a light on abuses, and it’s be- Against this backdrop, let me focus on the role of the transatlan- come a credible resource for many in the academic community, tic partnership and suggest eight lessons that I would offer up for religious advocacy groups, think-tanks, and like-minded foreign your consideration. governments who work on religious freedom. I remember that during the first trip that Bob Seiple and I took together in the First, structuring religious freedom through law and through 2000, we visited several European countries and spoke to many government entities dedicated to religious freedom helps en- people. The foreign minister in one of the countries said to us sure that religious freedom will not fall through the cracks. As at the time of our second report, “We could never produce a is true in our country, in 1998 when the IRFA law was being report like that, but you guys put it out. We just send out each considered, there was a great debate whether or not there should of these chapters to our staff in embassies across the globe and be a separate religious freedom entity. Why wasn’t it part of all say, ‘Here is your blueprint for addressing religious freedom con- of the other human rights groups? Why raise it above or differ- cerns.’” We still hear over and over again that these reports are ently from other human rights concerns? And the response of invaluable and often the basis of other efforts done by academics people in both parties—who voted almost unanimously for the and think-tanks. legislation—was that of all the human rights, religious freedom was the most overlooked. It was overlooked by the human rights Over the last 17 years, we’ve created a cadre of over a thousand offices of most governments, overlooked by human rights orga- Foreign Service officers in embassies across the globe that have nizations, overlooked in human rights courts, and overlooked in had to connect with religious groups who are often oppressed. regional and multilateral bodies. It just didn’t get the same level On that same trip, Bob and I heard from religious groups who of attention. In fact, people didn’t know quite how to talk about said, “We never had anyone to talk to before. But now this per- it or what to make of it. But whatever the explanation, it was son comes to us to find out what they need to know about us for kind of a stepchild to the broad scheme of human rights protec- this report, and it develops a connection. We have a name and tions and concerns that governments and non-governmental or- a telephone number to call whenever we’re in trouble.” And the ganizations had. And this law seemed to be a kind of affirmative embassies have now stepped up their engagement and involve- action program that would lift religious freedom up to the level ment with those communities. So structuring these things in this of other core human rights. way has had a profound impact.

On that level, we’ve made significant progress. The fact that the Third, we are investing in professional diplomatic training in re- report comes out regularly—and the fact that there is this team ligious freedom. Our training is more than just learning on the of bright, dedicated people focused on this issue—have made a job. At the Foreign Service Institute in Arlington, Virginia, we profound difference. There is no guarantee that at a macro level provide training to U.S. diplomats and other government of- it will have a determinative impact on the policy of whatever ficials on religious freedom in different aspects of religion and country you are a part of, but it has helped significantly. I offer global affairs. I think all of us who are engaged in this work that impact for your consideration. And just so it isn’t forgotten, would like to see this training mandatory, not just for incoming

76 BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 “You learn best about other faiths and learn to respect other faiths not just by talking about it, but by doing things together. Those things may be social service work, building homes, feeding hungry people, or tutoring kids in schools. These things are done by individuals, youth groups, or families. And you also learn by socializing together or sharing each other’s holidays, where you’re building real friendships and real understandings.”

David Saperstein

Foreign Service officers but for the re-training that is given to Fifth, we seek to coordinate programming, especially in mul- the deputy chief of mission (the second-in-command) and to tilateral fora but also in individual countries. I mentioned that ambassadors when they go out as well. We are making significant we strengthened our programming efforts on religious freedom. progress with robust classes now. Just recently this past month, What I’ve learned through my travel and engagements is that we launched another major initiative to go out across the globe there are many like-minded countries, governments, and civil and pull together staff from embassies to do training and talk society organizations that are investing in similar initiatives. It’s about common problems that they share. We hope to hit every in our collective interest to coordinate so that we are not dupli- region of the globe with such regional trainings. cating our efforts at a minimum, and so that we are doing our utmost to maximize our effectiveness. Fourth, we want to acknowledge the importance of indepen- dent oversight as embodied in the U.S. Commission on Inter- On one of my recent trips, the Canadian high commissioner national Religious Freedom, which is led by a bipartisan panel convened the ambassadors of a number of like-minded countries of nine expert commissioners who volunteer their time and are in his embassy who were members of the Inter-Governmental supported by a superb professional and nonpartisan staff. The Contact Group for Freedom of Religion or Belief. By virtue of independent commission monitors religious freedom globally all of us being in the same room discussing how we’re advanc- and provides policy recommendations to both Congress and ing our religious freedom priorities, not just through policy but the administration. At first blush, it might seem that USCIRF programmatic activity, we were stunned to learn that we were just duplicates my office at state, but in reality it complements working on many of the same issues with many of the same local and helps push the issue forward in unique and valuable ways. NGOs without even knowing it. Based on that insight, we’ve It can speak freely on issues of the day, stay focused on freedom agreed that at the multilateral level, the contact group will be of religion, challenge us to do more, and think about how the making religious freedom programming coordination a key fo- U.S. government can more effectively advance its agenda. As cus of our cooperation. At the country level, we are requesting far as I know, there are no other entities like USCIRF that exist our respective missions to regularly touch base with each other in the world. to discuss progress on programming initiatives and to coordinate their efforts. This allows us to sequence our programs in a man- But as is the case with our own Congress, where there are ner that allows our individual efforts to build on each other’s. so many members passionately committed to religious free- In my remarks to the international parliamentary network on dom, parliaments in other nations can play a similar role in freedom of religion last month, I discussed this approach that providing oversight and political momentum on these issues. encouraged parliamentarians to pass legislation to fund interna- In the United States, USCIRF does consistent work in high- tional religious freedom programming in every country and to lighting abuses, and it is trying to build the international co- encourage their respective foreign ministries to prioritize free- alition of parliamentarians. I’m pleased that both the House dom of religion and belief worldwide. and the Senate have wisely decided to provide a multiyear reauthorization of USCIRF. In whatever form it comes—an Sixth, we are implementing the consensus resolutions we have ad hoc parliamentary caucus or an independent, government- on combating intolerance. Now, there was a lot of fascinating connected entity like USCIRF—such entities really help in debate earlier today about to what extent we mean the same terms of complementing the work we do in keeping the mo- thing by “religious belief.” Tom and I usually agree on things, mentum going. but I want to toss on the table another way of thinking about

BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 77 this, which relates to whether or not we really want to act only deal with hate speech or bad speech, however you define that, is on a common agreement or covenant. It may well be that we by drowning it out with good speech. That’s what many of our will end up with a lowest common denominator in the effort interfaith coalitions, civil society groups, and government leaders to try to forge that kind of consensus. I recognize the positive work together to do. consequences of doing that. I just want to point out a perhaps counterproductive impact. Take the Qur’an burning. When one pastor talked about burning the Qur’an, he provoked thousands of leaders all across America We don’t all have the same ideas. But we do overlap; we to condemn it. When neo-Nazi groups marched in Skokie, Illi- agree on the vast majority of issues, including what religious nois (which has the highest concentration of Holocaust survivors freedom means. And I can see a very strong argument that in the United States), they were defended by a huge number says maybe we’re better off working together on an ad hoc of people, dwarfing the number of neo-Nazis marching. Reli- basis through these entities, as well as through other orga- gious, political, and civil society leaders all came to reject such nized, multilateral entities across the globe, on issues where speech. We all know countless examples, and we heard about we agree. But we should work separately where we disagree, the Shoulder-to-Shoulder campaign earlier today, which is an knowing that each of us will pick up constituencies and ad- important example currently dealing with Islamophobia in the dress different concerns in a way that we wouldn’t do if we United States. limited ourselves only to those parts of the definition of re- ligious freedom on which we agree. So I just wanted to toss On the international front, one way the United States has ad- that on the table for us to think about and talk about as we vanced our view on the issue is through the implementation of go forward from this conference. UN Human Rights Resolution 16/18 on combating religious intolerance, a consensus resolution that simultaneously ad- Now, while we’re ramping up our international cooperation and vances freedom of expression and freedom of religion or belief. coordination, the United States has a very specific role to play In response, the Department of State, not wanting to just let it internationally. The United States is unique in our approach to sit there, created a program to collaborate with other countries freedom of expression and freedom of religion. You heard this re- to implement the resolution by sending experts from across the ferred to several times. They go hand in hand by design, and they U.S. government to discuss practical ways to deal with intoler- are both enshrined in the First Amendment of our Constitution. ance while ensuring the right to freedom of expression. We’ve Too often we see countries interpreting international standards had notable success with our partners in Bosnia, Greece, and in a way that requires freedom of expression to be curtailed, Indonesia. We’re expanding this work to cover every region in sometimes quite seriously so, to fully protect freedom of religion the world. Given the multilateral nature of this effort, this is a or belief as defined by the majority. Many countries have laws specific area ripe for transatlantic cooperation. in place restricting freedom of expression beyond the narrow re- strictions permitted under U.S. law. Under the statute of Bran- Seventh, we are complementing religious freedom advocacy with denburg v. Ohio, you can pretty much say whatever you want, so a holistic understanding of religion and its effect on every area long as it does not provoke imminent violence and there is not a of foreign policy. I already alluded to this when I talked about danger of imminent violence as a result of provocative speech. In the integration of our work into the broader agenda of the State the end, we have come to the determination that the best way to Department.

“We’ve seen terrible things from ISIL: the devastation to the Yazidi community, the devastation to historic Christian communities, and the devastation to the other minority communities in Iraq and Syria. Religious minorities are being driven out. They are being killed and butchered. They are being enslaved and raped. They are being forced into marriages and forced into conversions.”

David Saperstein

78 BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 I have one other area I want to talk about here, but before I do, intervening early on to try and convince people that extreme let me just give a real example that I know is very much in the forms of religion are illegitimate. On the other hand, we in the hearts and minds of every person in this room. Many of you have United States have focused more on the violent acts. People can heard me talk about the vision that I have of what it will take for have whatever religious views they want no matter how funda- the indigenous communities in Iraq and Syria to be restored to mentalist they are, so long as they are not using force to impose their historic homelands and their historic communities. First, it their religious views on others and they abide by the rule of law. will take keeping them in place and defeating ISIL. Second, they It doesn’t matter how fundamentalist or how liberal their theol- need a standard of living as displaced populations in which their ogy is. These are two different ways of dealing with this. children will have a decent education in their own languages, kids will finish school and have access to jobs, and families will The Canadian prime minister called for a program similar to what have access to healthcare. Third, it’s going to require an effec- David Cameron has. It may be one of those areas that is driven in tive security system that they’ll trust and that they’ll have some the United States by the kind of aesthetic resonance of the separa- control over, which means they have to have their own militias tion of church and state. We don’t like the government deciding integrated with the Iraqi and Peshmerga forces into a cohesive what religion is good religion, what religion is bad religion, or fa- whole. They’ll need to have some decision-making about the de- voring one religion over another. It may be one of those areas in ployment of those forces. Fourth, they’ll need a restorative tran- which our work complements each other. We both want the same sitional justice system. Many of these people will be going back thing: We don’t want violence and we don’t want extremist views to communities in which former neighbors were often complicit that sanction that violence. However you approach it, and from with ISIL or bystanders to ISIL’s crimes, and have been taking whichever end you approach it, there may be different means. over the homes or businesses of their former neighbors. That’s a Maybe we can find ways to work together, and maybe we’re going very tough road to travel to restore those communities, and there to decide that we’re going to complement each other. has to be a plan of restorative justice and reconciliation. I want to point out as well that the question of how to support Then fifth, there has to be improved governance for minority moderate religious forces—defined not by their theology but by communities in Iraq, which Prime Minister Abadi has commit- their rejection of the use of force to impose their religious views on ted himself to, so that these minority communities will have a others and their willingness to abide by the rule of law—is a very real say in the future of their country. And finally, there has to difficult challenge for us. Very often the embrace of the transatlan- be a plan for economic rebuilding. It is impossible for any one tic community, including its civil society and religious segments, country to do that, and it is impossible for Iraq to do that. Iraq’s undercuts the very religious groups that we want to lift up. This role, however, is absolutely indispensable. embrace is used by extremists to delegitimize their authenticity within the context of their countries and their religious traditions. All of this can be an international undertaking in which different This is a major challenge for us, and it’s one that we have to work countries can work together to pick up the pieces. We should be- on together to find ways to empower those entities that reject the gin to move now, because if we wait until the day—may it come use of force to impose their religious or political views on oth- soon—when ISIL is driven out and there is an option for people ers. We need to find ways to help those civil society and religious to return to their communities, there will be utter chaos that will groups without delegitimizing them through our very embrace. I descend into sectarian violence if we are not prepared for that think it’s one of the central foreign policy challenges that we face. day. We have to move now to plan for that. That is something that this transatlantic partnership can focus on. I give this just So these are the challenges that we face. These are some of the as an example, which brings together a number of the themes differences and some of the similarities that provide opportuni- which I talked about. ties for engagement.

And let me finally turn to the last issue, which is combating Religious freedom at its core is directly related to freedom of violent extremism. We do have different views on this issue. In conscience. It is a right of any individual to define their own rela- the United Kingdom, we have Prime Minister David Camer- tionship with the divine or to choose not to have such a relation- on launching his initiative to confront and defeat this poison ship. It is a right for that individual not only just to worship, but of extremism—not violent extremism, but extremism. In other also to practice his or her beliefs, to change his or her beliefs, to words, he wants to prevent extremism from coming about by speak publicly and directly to others about his or her beliefs, and

BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 79 to encourage others to share the same beliefs. There is little in life situation in the world. I mean, it’s just an obvious point right that is more intimate and personal than an individual’s right to now. No one can really look at the global situation without rec- believe in and relate to the divine as they choose, including the ognizing that religious freedom is something that has to be taken right to choose not to believe. And that’s why we interpret this into consideration. fundamental human right so broadly; that is why it matters in so many ways, and why it is such an appropriate topic for this But in the government there is an openness to it. Is some of it conference. Thank you all. [Applause] idiosyncratic? Is it because of the particular people who happen to be in place now? Yeah, I think in part it is. But those people get it, THOMAS FARR: You described some remarkable changes that and they want to see it entrenched into the entities that they run have happened very recently within the State Department, such as well. So we’re moving in that direction. Will there be ebbs and as the relationship between religious freedom and counterter- flows? I think so. Is this something that will dissipate? I really don’t rorism programs. You don’t have a crystal ball and neither do I, think so. I think for the next generation this will be kind of a given but I applaud these new efforts. Do you think these efforts are part of the way we think about the world. I’m actually optimistic sufficiently rooted and that they will survive the next election? on this. I can’t say that there are other things I’m not a little more There’s a pretty difficult culture down there at Foggy Bottom. pessimistic on, but on this piece I’m really quite optimistic. How are we doing on that front? The point is not the new administration. THOMAS FARR: Okay. We have The point is the movement of the time for a few questions from the time. You know you’re not going to “We have witnessed an audience. get rid of the political division. unprecedented crisis as people are driven out of their historic FABIO PETITO: I’m Fabio Petito DAVID SAPERSTEIN: First, I homelands at an escalating from the University of Sussex. Thank think it’s in our strong interest to rate. This is an area ripe for you for a fascinating speech. I have work with like-minded people in oth- transatlantic cooperation.” a comment and a question. I was er countries across the globe to make very pleased to see that your office progress on religious freedom in the is thinking of the big challenges that David Saperstein European Union and in other demo- we are facing in the reconstruction of cratic countries. We need to show religious coexistence in the Middle them that you cannot successfully East. I agree with you that it’s a huge counter violent extremism or terrorism, have a stable democracy, challenge. I was also very interested to see that you stressed the or have real conflict resolution if a country is going to descend into role of interreligious coalitions as a way of combating intoler- sectarian violence, or if one segment of a community is going to ance, as a way of creating the ground for reconstructing, recon- be shut out of governance and participation in that community ciliation, and coexistence. simply because of their religious beliefs or their religious practices. If religious believers are driven underground in order to live out My question is this: Do you think that the promotion of free- their religious lives, they give up on the hope that they can work dom of religion today has to go hand in hand with the issue of within the system of a country. It becomes a fertile ground for interreligious dialogue, interfaith coalition, and growing inter- extremists of all kinds to mobilize and say, “You’ll never get what religious understanding? I think this is an orientation that will you want working within the system. Come with us, we’ll change be very much welcomed in Europe and will definitely help to the system. We’ll create a different country.” This seems to be self- strengthen a transatlantic common ground on how to protect evident, but it’s not yet as widely understood across the globe as we the freedom of religion or belief. I would very much like to hear would have hoped for. your reaction to that.

I thought this would be the hardest task I had, to make this push DAVID SAPERSTEIN: Well, can I suggest a slightly different when I came in. I spent a lot of time in my beginning months way of taking one more question here? We heard the theme of going around and meeting with everyone on this, only to find the role of interreligious dialogue, and we heard the theme of the out that we have actually progressed quite far on it, that it was Middle East communities and the restoration. Can I ask anyone ingrained. Now, I can’t tell you that part of it is just the obvious else who has a comment or a question in that area to make it now?

80 BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 TOM GETMAN: My name is Tom Getman. I’m an NGO ex- DAVID SAPERSTEIN: All right. First, education is crucial- ecutive who has recently worked mostly in the Middle East as a ly important. There are a lot of great efforts across the globe. professional board member consultant to other NGOs, partic- Some are spurred by governments; the Scandinavian govern- ularly church organizations. When interreligious or interfaith ments have been particularly involved with this work. A lot dialogue breaks down and begins to block real discussion on has been spurred by groups like Religions for Peace and other the difficult issues, what’s the step we can take through your interreligious coalitions that try to address this question of cur- office? For instance, one of the things we’ve seen of late is that ricula and what people are taught in the schools. If people are some of the worst fomenters of violence are Americans who being taught to hate in their classrooms as a normal part of are calling Christians and Muslims idolatrous, heretical people. their educational experience, it becomes virtually impossible to overcome it. DAVID SAPERSTEIN: Got it. Are there any others? So it is absolutely necessary, but it is not a sufficient part of ANNE LEAHY: Thank you. That’s an excellent question. I it—any more than dialogue groups are sufficient. You learn participated in the third Catholic-Muslim forum in Rome last best about other faiths and learn to respect other faiths not just November, and the most important point that was made is that by talking about it, but by doing things together. Those things we need to know each other better on the ground. That can be may be social service work, building homes, feeding hungry done through education. It was mentioned this morning, and people, or tutoring kids in schools. These things are done by in- I really wanted to say, “Bravo.” dividuals, youth groups, or families. And you also learn by so- cializing together or sharing each other’s holidays, where you’re So offices of religious freedom can help by being much more in building real friendships and real understandings. sync in terms of the projects that come up for approval, using funds of the office that support the work that is being done in Many people only get together in formal dialogue events. We a given country. I have Egypt in mind, and perhaps Jordan. have found—and I think it’s shared by many of the institu- How are primary school curricula portraying the other minor- tions I see represented in this room—that that is not solely ity religions? There is a lot that needs to be done practically. sufficient to provide the kind of cooperation that you want. And at that meeting last November, every Muslim participant Sometimes those interreligious coalitions do break down, par- emphasized that point. Thank you. ticularly when there are differences on core principles. That’s a tough thing.

BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 81 There’s no short-term answer to that other than to shift your attention chaos. Interreligious cooperation between the diverse tapestry of to where you can find common ground and begin to rebuild again. Iraq’s religious population is indispensable. But there is no short-term answer to those kinds of issues. When people like the settlers on the West Bank say disparaging things about THOMAS FARR: Well, that was a terrific answer. people of other faiths, it’s up to civil society, government officials, and interreligious communities to do something about it. DAVID SAPERSTEIN: I have one last observation here. It is simply this: I talked about how daunting this agenda is—and it The transatlantic partnership was often mobilized in Europe over really is daunting. My mentor, the remarkable Al Vorspan, used this past year in the face of some very ugly things that happened. to observe that the difference between an optimist and a pessi- But the problem is, in this day of new technologies, these ugly mist is that an optimist argues that this is the best of all possible messages sweep the world very swiftly. Rumors sweep the world worlds—and a pessimist agrees. [Laughter] very quickly here, and that is a real challenge to us. The State Department has an entire program aimed at trying to find more This was a daunting agenda that we heard today. I don’t know effective ways to address that and to undercut the impact of the how anyone could have sat through this day surrounded by the negative messages that sweep the globe through social media people in this room without being more optimistic now than technologies. We’re making some progress in some areas, though when they came in. I want to thank all of you for that, and thank less so in terms of disenchantment with ISIL and other groups. all of you who made this possible. But we really are making some progress, and I do think that these interreligious communities in the Middle East are going to THOMAS FARR: Thank you Ambassador Saperstein. be absolutely vital. I talked about filling that void so there’s not [Applause]

“There is little in life that is more intimate and personal than an individual’s right to believe in and relate to the divine as they choose, including the right to choose not to believe. And that’s why we interpret this fundamental human right so broadly; that is why it matters in so many ways, and why it is such an appropriate topic for this conference.”

David Saperstein

82 BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM PROJECT — OCTOBER 2015 3307 M Street NW, Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20007 [email protected] 202-687-5119 http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/rfp

Cover Image by IHH Humanitarian Relief Foundation

84

BERKLEY CENTER FOR RELIGION, PEACE & WORLD AFFAIRS AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY WHAT’S SO SPECIAL ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM? • NOVEMBER 17, 2011